Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - English

The investigations of the Berlin Science Survey were aimed at answering the question of what good conditions for science are. The focus was primarily on the relationship between research cultures developing under given conditions and research quality. To this end, statements from 2,767 researchers from the Berlin research area were evaluated, including 2,032 researchers from the four BUA institutions and a further 735 from non-university research institutions in Berlin. In addition, 2,471 researchers from universities of excellence outside Berlin were surveyed. This comparative sample is used to check whether individual results are only valid for the Berlin area or also beyond.

Structural conditions

The conditions for science are not considered to be particularly good, either at the national level or at the local level of the institutions. There is room for improvement here. Three quarters of the respondents criticise the funding system and four fifths criticise the career structures in the science system. In particular, a total of 83% rate the administrative processes at the institutions as “rather poor” or “very poor”. Therefore, the greatest need for support by the institutions is seen here in the administrative processes (71%). The second greatest need for support is seen in connection with the acquisition of third-party funding (50%).

A comparison between the BUA institutions and non-university research institutions in Berlin also shows that the problems with administration are significantly greater at the universities, while the non-university research institutions – certainly also due to more basic funding – have significantly fewer difficulties here.

Apart from the difficulties in the administrative structures, the research environment of the Berlin research area is rated as thoroughly positive with regard to several target dimensions that are also relevant for the BUA. Innovativeness is rated “good” to “very good” by 84.2%, cooperativeness by 82.3%, and internationality by 88.4%. The research quality is even rated “good” to “very good” by 91.4%. These values have even improved compared to 2022. The assessments of the “implementation of open science” have also improved significantly compared to 2022. 67.4% of respondents consider the Berlin research area to be well-positioned in this regard, compared to 59.1% of respondents two years ago.

At the same time, the BUA can certainly see itself strengthened in its work to advance the Berlin research area. The BUA has become better known compared to 2022 and, at 51%, even more researchers are now actively or passively involved in the BUA's activities. This is also reflected in a slightly improved image of the BUA: slightly more than in 2022 believe in the BUA's ability to make the Berlin research area more innovative (52.4%) and international (60.2%).

Work motivation

The research and work cultures in the sciences are characterised by a very high intrinsic motivation. This applies in particular to professors. Here, 91.8% say that they enjoy their work and 88.8% say that science is not just a profession for them, but a vocation. This high level of motivation (and professional ethos) harbors dangers of self-exploitation or self-sacrifice.

Workload

Researchers are under a great deal of stress due to the many tasks and the high expectations placed on them or that they place on themselves. This is reflected, on the one hand, in high weekly working hours and weekly overtime. Professors work an average of 51.2 hours per week. The weekly overtime worked in addition to the contractual working hours is 6.1 hours for postdocs and 7.9 hours for predocs. For predocs, overtime hours occur primarily in departments where part-time contracts are more common. Since actual weekly working hours are primarily determined by the general work culture in the department and not by the respective contractual hours, employees with part-time contracts fall behind and almost automatically accumulate more unpaid overtime. Engineering science is setting a positive example here. Here, the share of part-time contracts is lower and, accordingly, the weekly overtime is not quite as high.

Secondly, the workload is reflected in high levels of so-called stressors. For example, around 64% state that they regularly work under time pressure. 57% say that they regularly have work to catch up on. A good half state that they regularly feel frustrated due to poor conditions, and 40% regularly see their private lives affected by work. These stresses also pose health risks. 52% state that they are “often”, “very often” or “always”, i.e. regularly, physically or emotionally exhausted by work. 26.9% of those surveyed reflect this and state that they consider their health to be at risk. One might think that postdocs are particularly stressed, since they are usually not in a secure position and therefore often find themselves in strong competition at the same time. However, the group of professors shows the highest levels of stress. Furthermore, women across all groups show significantly higher stress levels than their male colleagues.

At the same time, a comparison between the BUA institutions and the non-university research institutions in the Berlin area shows that the stress levels of researchers at the non-university research institutions are significantly lower. It is therefore also the task of university management to minimise stress through appropriate measures. In this context, it is also important to collaborate with state higher education policy to analyse why conditions at universities are so much less favourable than at non-university research institutions, leading to significantly more stress for the researchers working there. The finding corresponds to the fact that researchers at non-university research institutions complain less about the general conditions and, in particular, about the administration and other science-supporting structures than researchers at universities do.

Research and work cultures

The research cultures are characterised by a high degree of competition in the research fields. 49% of respondents report strong competition in their research field, with a further 27% reporting very strong competition. This “outward” competition is countered in their own work environment by a high degree of cooperation and relatively little competition. Almost three quarters (72%) of all respondents report that collaboration within their working groups is characterised by a high degree of cooperation, mutual support and a positive communication and error culture. At the same time, 32% of respondents report that their immediate working environment or their own working group is also characterised by strong or even very strong competition.

The work cultures affect several other aspects of research culture. For example, a cooperative environment promotes innovation and productivity and reduces the risk of discrimination and abuse of power. At the same time, there is significantly less physical or emotional exhaustion in cooperative research cultures. Working is thus also more sustainable. In this context, it is encouraging on the one hand that an absolute majority (72%) of respondents work in these positive research contexts. On the other hand, however, a good quarter (28%) of all researchers find themselves in work cultures that tend to be uncooperative and problematic in many respects. There is clearly room for improvement here.

Research quality

Research quality is one of the big topics, not only in research management, but also in science policy debates and the research community itself. Contrary to prevailing debates, the Berlin Science Survey did not approach the topic via cases of research misconduct. Instead, it looked at the extent to which the scientists’ research orientations are fundamentally geared towards quality and to what extent quality-related practices are implemented in everyday research. The results show that research quality is highly valued. The resppondents see the research-immanent goals of “methodological rigor” and “originality of research results” as the most important goals and therefore give them the highest priority in practice. This is the case even though other scientific goals, such as publication output and third-party funding, are associated with greater pressure on researchers.

With regard to research practices, a high degree of quality assurance measures is implemented. 89% report discussing their research results with others. 87% report publishing with peer-reviewed publishers. Internal quality assurance (four-eyes principle) is also quite widespread before submitting manuscripts or third-party funding. In the case of manuscripts, 71% of researchers practice this, and for third-party funding, 55% do so. There is perhaps room for improvement here.

These cross-disciplinary quality assurance measures have to be distinguished from those, that are only relevant in some research contexts because they depend on the type of knowledge production and methods used. Practices such as replication studies (13%), the publication of null results (14%) or the pre-registration of research designs (14%) are only widespread in a small part of science. Pre-registrations are used significantly more often in the social sciences (30%), while replication studies (23%) and null results publications (25%) are more common in the life sciences.

The fact that these measures are particularly promoted in some disciplines, e.g. psychology, economics and medicine, only partly explains the field-specific differences in dissemination. On the other hand, they are also field-specific and demanding in that they can neither be used in all contexts nor achieve their objectives everywhere. Science policy and management should exercise caution here in transferring these measures as standard requirements to all research fields.

Quality risks arise from a heavy workload. For example, 28.5% of respondents stated that they “often”, “very often” or even “always” have to to make quality cutbacks at their work. In 80% of cases, this is at the expense of research. In 46.6% of cases, it is also at the expense of the quality of teaching. At the same time, researchers observe practices in their environment that indicate quality deficiencies. 18% observe that third-party funding applications are submitted despite a lack of quality, and 20% also observe this with regard to the submission of publications. 26% see that research proposals are not submitted on core research topics, and as many as 47% perceive that fashionable topics are being pursued instead of longer-term research agendas. These two practices are not problematic per se, but they can be an indication of competitive pressure and an acceleration in science that carries the risk of reduced quality.

Selection/self-selection (young researchers)

Science policy and research institutions often focus only on the selection of suitable personnel and pay less attention to the underlying self-selection processes. They are effectively resting on the assumption that enough capable “young talent” is entering academia and that there are always enough applicants for vacant positionsensuring the selection of suitable candidates. Of course, selection remains important, but for the so-called “competition for the best brains” it is also important to analyse self-selection. The data shows, firstly, that the majority of predocs do not want to remain in academia. Secondly, the majority of postdocs who pursue a career in academia do not want a professorship, but prefer other positions. This finding corresponds to an only moderate assessment of the attractiveness of the professorship as a profession. While the assessments among professors are still predominantly positive, this is no longer the case among mid-level faculty. We interpret these findings as being directly related to the high workload, the sometimes unlimited working hours and the overall stress, which is particularly evident among professors. Apparently, a large proportion of the mid-level faculty do not necessarily perceive the demands and pressures of their superiors and professorial colleagues as desirable for themselves in their day-to-day work.

The difficulties in filling vacancies with suitable applicants are already apparent in the subjects for which the non-university labour markets offer very good options/alternatives. In the STEM subjects, the majority of respondents rate the recruitment situation for postdoc positions and professorships as rather poor or very poor.

Contrary to expectations, Berlin cannot offer a locational advantage here either due to the “attractiveness of the city”. Such an advantage over other centres of excellence has not been empirically proved.

Discrimination & abuse of power

Incidents of discrimination and abuse of power are to be understood as a very extreme negative effect of poor work culture. The results of the BSS show that discrimination is a widespread phenomenon and not limited to isolated cases. Almost one in four researchers has experienced discrimination themselves. 23% of researchers report that they have personally experienced discrimination at least once in their current work environment within the last 24 months, and significantly more (almost 40%) report that they have observed discrimination at least once. 4% have regularly experienced abuse of power themselves and almost 7% have regularly observed it.

This shows that, while the majority of respondents experience their work contexts as free of discrimination and abuse of power, there is also a quantifiable number of such incidents that point to structural problems in some work contexts. Cases of discrimination and abuse of power are more common in work contexts characterised by a lack of cooperation.

The question that arises is: What would be decisive points at which politics and management can exert influence to improve the conditions in science? After all, if science wants to get the “best brains”, as is often claimed, then it must be ensured that scientific work is as stress-free as possible, that professional goals and paths are attractive, and that the work cultures are, of course, free of discrimination and abuse of power.

Recommendations

In summary, it can be said that the situation in science is characterised by highly motivated scientists who, under rather modest conditions, are highly motivated to conduct science at a high-quality level. In doing so, a lot of researchers work to their limits, which poses a risk to the quality and sustainability of the research performance. It is therefore also the task of university management to minimise the burden through appropriate measures and structural conditions.

Weaknesses in the overall academic system can hardly be remedied by individual research institutions. This raises the question of what the organisations, the individual research institutions, but also the Berlin University Alliance can do within the scope of their possibilities to improve the conditions for researchers and thus also for sustainably excellent research.

We primarily see the following fields of action:

1. More effective administration and support structures that are aligned with the needs of researchers and that offer them real relief.
2. Prevention as quality assurance: designing the organisation as a protective space for scientific work
   1. Since researchers tend to push themselves to their limits, the organisation could make it its mission to counteract this. It could take pressure off researchers. In the interest of prevention, the goal should be to recognise overwork early on and avoid health risks – and not only with the academic staff.
   2. It is almost more important not to create unnecessary pressure of expectation by assigning new tasks.
3. Focus on cooperative and sustainable research and work cultures instead of an obsession with output
   1. Since researchers themselves know best what good research is, they do not actually need targets. Here, trust is more appropriate.
   2. To avoid misguided control, it is important to involve representatives from different disciplines and research contexts in planned change processes at an early stage in order to jointly define goals that are then tailored to the different research cultures (participatory governance).
   3. In order to minimise the risk of abuse of power and discrimination while maintaining the existing focus on quality, as part of quality management, it is important to look not only at output but also at the work cultures in which the output is generated. Cooperative work cultures with open communication and a positive error culture, combined with reduced competition, are least susceptible to these risks. They are therefore the more sustainable work cultures in science.
4. Science as a profession must become more attractive again, otherwise it will not be possible to inspire young talent for this career.
   1. This task does not lie with the individual universities and research institutions alone, but is a political task for all. However, each organisation can use the creative leeway to improve the situation locally and possibly stand out positively from other institutions and research locations.
   2. The institutions must have the courage to decide with which personnel they want to work in the longer term. After an intensive one-time selection, assessment and evaluation process, it is also a matter of employer responsibility to commit to working with staff in the future in a trusting manner, without attaching further and further conditions to the collaboration. This requires suitable personnel development concepts and their effective implementation so that this new personnel culture is also visible to the outside world. This can give the Berlin universities and the entire alliance a competitive advantage, even if the recruitment situation in the science system as a whole continues to deteriorate.
   3. In the internal promotion of young researchers, the competence of researchers should be strengthened so that they can make informed and self-confident decisions about various career paths within or outside of science.

A sustainable improvement in these areas of action requires a fundamental improvement in the structural conditions of teaching and research organisations.