Knowledge transfer in the research process
In order to take stock of current knowledge transfer in the Berlin research area, the term knowledge transfer must first be defined. "The Berlin University Alliance defines knowledge exchange as a process of mutual exchange of knowledge between actors from the sciences and various areas of society such as politics, culture and business" (Berlin University Alliance 2023). This is a very strong or narrow concept of knowledge transfer, which we approached step by step in our survey.
In order to determine the knowledge transfer potential in the various research fields, we first asked the scientists which groups outside of academia their research results are relevant for. These assessments provide information about the areas of society into which knowledge transfer activities could potentially be developed. In a second step, we asked whether the researchers are already in contact with the relevant groups. This information indicates the extent to which the potential to transfer knowledge to non-university groups has already been exhausted. Where research is relevant to social groups but there is no exchange with them (yet), there is potential to expand knowledge transfer activities or to support them on the organizational side. Interestingly, such additional potential seems to exist above all in the exchange with citizens and politics (see Figure 14). Conversely, it makes little sense to develop transfer activities indiscriminately without reference to the target group.
Relevance of own research (knowledge transfer potential)
Most scientists see their research as fundamentally relevant for non-scientific areas (88%). Only a few respondents state that their research is "not at all" relevant to the areas surveyed (2.6%, not shown). For 17.9% of the scientists surveyed, their own research is "fairly" or "very" relevant for precisely one area outside of science. For these scientists, there is therefore a very clear target group. For the remaining 70%, at least two of the areas surveyed are possible addressees for the knowledge transfer of their own research. Almost 20% even state that their research is "fairly" or "very relevant" for at least five areas outside of science.
The relevance assessments are shown in detail in Figure 12. 53.5% of respondents state that their own research is relevant for "practitioners" (e.g. medical professionals, technicians, teachers). 48.4% state that their own research is relevant for "politics" and 48% state "citizens" as the target group of their own research. Politics and citizens are the two areas between which the overlap of mentions is greatest. This means that if the research is relevant to politics, it was often stated that it is also relevant to citizens. In addition, 40.9% stated that their research is relevant for the economy (start-ups, companies, industry). In the case of civil society organizations (such as foundations, associations, federations, NGOs), 39.4% claimed relevance and 32.2% in the case of the media. The values are all quite close to each other, with only the relevance assessment for the arts and culture sector falling slightly behind at 18.7%. This could have to do with the fact that the researchers are not aware of the full spectrum of what art and culture can refer to and therefore do not see an immediate need for knowledge here that needs to be filled (cf. Reinicke et al. 2020). Accordingly, unlike in other non-academic fields, knowledge would be transferred here less according to the push principle and more according to a pull principle (Thiel 2002), in which artists and cultural practitioners themselves access the knowledge that they consider suitable to utilize or refer to. This assumption is also supported by the fact that 54% of respondents do not see any relevance of their own research for the field of art & culture.
The relevance assessments and the associated differentiated target group reference form the frame of reference for the further investigation of transfer and exchange activities. These assessments should also form the basis for any measures to increase knowledge transfer activities in the Berlin research area. It must be acknowledged that assessments of relevance can also change, e.g. as a result of experience with the relevant groups.
Figure 12 Relevance of research for non-scientific areas
These average values for the knowledge transfer profile conceal clear subject profiles (see Figure 13). These in turn indicate that knowledge with very different social relevance is produced in different research fields. This results in subject-specific transfer profiles or, initially, relevance profiles.
Humanities scholars emphasize the importance of their research for art and culture (just under 73.5%) and for the media (57.1%). In contrast, only a few humanities scholars see the relevance of their research for the economy (11.6%). The scientific results of social scientists are primarily considered important for politics (a good 82%) and civil society actors (69.7%).
In the life sciences (including medicine), the relevance for the group of practitioners predominates (just under 71%). Depending on the subject group, the term "practitioners" can refer to different groups of people, including medical professionals, technicians and teachers.
Scientists, like engineers, most frequently see utilization opportunities in the economy (46.4% and 75.2% respectively). In the natural sciences, where no target group clearly stands out, citizens (37.8%) and politics (32.8%) follow closely behind.
Figure 13 Relevance of research for non-scientific areas, by subject group
It should be noted that the relevance of their own research for various non-scientific areas of society varies depending on the subject group, but is rated quite highly overall. The proportion of those who do not consider their own research to be relevant to any area ("hardly relevant" or "not relevant at all") is also very low. Here, the proportion is still highest among natural scientists at just under 25% (see Figure 13). This is partly due to the fact that a large number of people in this subject group are involved in basic research, which in turn is more often considered irrelevant for non-scientific areas (not shown). Of all respondents who carry out basic research, 29.1% are from the natural sciences (not shown).
The fact that the relevance profiles differ depending on the type of knowledge produced is important both with regard to suitable science communication and to science policy control and support measures for a possible transfer of knowledge.
Exchange with relevant reference groups
In order to take a general inventory of the scientists involved in the exchange, the Berlin Science Survey followed up the relevance assessments by asking whether the scientists are in exchange with those social groups for which they consider their research to be relevant. This information, which is shown in Figure 14, can be understood as an indicator of the knowledge transfer that actually takes place and at the same time provides information on the degree to which a possible knowledge transfer potential has been exploited.
Figure 14 Exchange relationships with the relevant areas
An actual exchange is most widespread with practitioners as the relevant reference group (see Figure 14): Here, over 78% of respondents state that they are in exchange if their own research is considered "fairly" or "very relevant" for this group of people. Well over half of the respondents who consider research to be relevant for the media are also in contact with them (58.3%, Figure 14). The proportion is even higher for art and culture (64.2%), business (65.9%) and civil society (68.3%). Only in the reference groups of politics and citizens is the proportion of those who see their own research as relevant here and are also in contact with the groups below 50%. Nevertheless, the exchange is also quite high here at 47.2% and 46% respectively (see Figure 14).
Reciprocal knowledge transfer (timing of the exchange)
While in the early debates on knowledge transfer, this exchange was understood more as a unidirectional process of transferring finished knowledge, i.e. research results, to various actors in society, a concept of knowledge transfer is establishing itself in current debates that sees science in a stronger reciprocal exchange with society (Nowotny et al. 2001). This bidirectional or even multidirectional understanding of knowledge transfer emphasizes the interaction between science and different areas of society. Such an exchange can take place in various phases of the research process.
Interactions can take place before the actual research process, e.g. to obtain suggestions or insights from possible knowledge addressees and potential users into their understanding of the problem.
Interactions during the research process do not only include the now famous citizen science, in which citizens are involved, for example, in collecting mostly scientific data. It can also be strongly application and problem-solving related research that is carried out in close coordination with non-scientific partners, e.g. "practitioners". This includes translational research, e.g. in medicine, but also contract research for business and public institutions. Exchange after completion of the research process is often classic science communication, and therefore rather one-sided from a transfer perspective. However, the exchange can serve as a basis for further ideas and new research approaches if there is a discussion of the content of research results.
The new knowledge transfer survey instrument developed specifically for the Berlin Science Survey allows for a very detailed survey of such exchange processes. These phases in which exchange takes place - before, during or after the respective research process - were recorded. For the exchange during the research process, a distinction was also made as to whether the exchange took place during the planning of the research design, the implementation of the research, or the interpretation of the research results. Multiple answers were possible for all questions on the time of the exchange. The particular depth of detail in the survey allows conclusions to be drawn about the intensity and quality of the exchange. This survey instrument thus makes it possible to distinguish between a broader concept of knowledge transfer, which also includes (mere) scientific communication, and a narrower concept of transfer, in which the exchange takes place at the content level.
Figures 15 and 16 below show the phases of the research process in which an exchange takes place. It can be seen that exchanges in the various areas follow very similar patterns: Overall, exchanges take place significantly less frequently before the research process than during and after the research process. When answering the question about the timing of the exchange, multiple answers were possible, as exchanges can of course take place with reference groups at different times. Due to the multiple answers, the percentages can add up to over 100 %.
Figure 15 Exchange in the various phases of the research process
Figure 15 also makes it clear that the area of "media" has a special position in terms of exchange, as there is virtually no exchange before the research process. This is not surprising, as the media are only a source of research questions for very few research fields (such as media and communication studies). Rather, communication following the research process dominates the exchange with the media (83%). This is understandable, as the media utilize scientific findings. The situation is similar in the field of politics, where scientific findings are also utilized. Here, too, the exchange after the research process predominates (75%), although the exchange during the research process is also quite high (66%). The exchange with all other social reference groups takes place predominantly during the research process and is usually accompanied by an exchange until after the research process. The exchange with practitioners during the research process is particularly frequent (86.8%).
Figure 16 provides a more detailed breakdown of the exchange during the research process. This shows how often people interacted when developing the research questions, conducting the research or interpreting the results. When answering the questions, multiple answers were again permitted, so that the percentages can again add up to over 100%.
The special position of the media area is once again evident in this presentation: while interaction with all other areas mainly takes place during the research process, in the media area it only takes place during the interpretation and presentation of results. For all other areas, the exchange often already takes place during the development of the research question. This is particularly true for the exchange with partners from industry (61%) and with practitioners (50.6%). However, the exchange of knowledge with politicians, civil society institutions and the arts and culture also takes place at this early stage in around a third of cases. It is also noticeable that the exchange with practitioners and the economy takes place more frequently than in the other areas at several points during the research process. It can therefore be assumed that the exchange is not just selective, but continuous.
Figure 16 Exchange in the various phases during the research process
At status and subject group level, there are hardly any differences in the timeliness of exchanges with the respective relevant groups. Overall, professors interact slightly more (see Figure 17). At subject group level, it is primarily engineering academics who are most in contact with relevant groups before and during the research process (see Figure 18). This can be attributed to the higher cooperation rate with companies in this subject group (Lüdtke, Yankova, Ambrasat 2023).
As an interim conclusion, it can be stated that, on the one hand, exchange does not take place everywhere where research is considered relevant, but on the other hand, it is by no means possible to speak of so-called "research in an ivory tower". Exchange with relevant interest groups is quite widespread, and not only as downstream scientific communication, but to a considerable extent even before and during the research process.
Figure 17 Exchange by phase in the research process, by status group
Figure 18 Exchange by phase in the research process, by subject group