Opportunities and risks

A. Performance and political, legal and regulatory environments

The reasoning and motivations for cooperating with foreign partners are primarily academic in nature: academic expertise, shared research interests, comparable standards and compatible cultures of teaching and learning. Complementary research areas and specific natural, environmental or demographic constellations are other factors that can tip the balance for academic cooperation relationships. However, when assessing opportunities and potentials it is worth considering the performance (A) of the academic system concerned and furthermore to give closer scrutiny to the contextual factors that shape the environment of the potential cooperation partner.

This could include issues such as the safety and sustainability of employment relationships and pay structures on the part of the partner. If there are high levels of fluctuation and staff turnover in key functional and working levels within the higher education institution, the partner should prepare themselves for such mission-critical environmental and structural factors from the very outset and ensure they are able to respond flexibly and find innovative solutions. The staff/student ratio at a given higher education institution is another important parameter that provides information on workload, the quality of teaching and the resources that can be used for research.

Finally, other factors not immediately associated with the academic system also make significant impacts on how well a cooperation functions and what it yields. Such factors include equality of opportunity, handling freedom of expression, diversity and gender relations.

The wider legal environment, particularly with regards to processes for issuing visas and research approval, should be understood and considered in advance. This includes issues such as what reporting and documentation obligations are required for a given type of visa. When planning trips abroad, students, research associates, doctoral candidates and higher education teachers should be made aware of the need to take responsibility for checking which category of visa (including through consultation with partners) in their destination country provides full coverage for the planned activity for the nature of their trip, be it a study visit, participating in a conference, initiating a cooperation or conducting field research, for example. Applying for and processing applications for research visas and student visas can take a particularly long time where they are not part of an established partnership programme. This can be a major factor for time-limited PhD- or (third-party funded) research projects. For this reason, attention should be given to choosing and applying for the appropriate visa in good time.

In this, it is essential to involve the partner institution at an early stage, as is early consultation with a network of trusted individuals at the destination. The host institution can provide support with such administrative processes and refer visa applications to the central office in their respective country for authoritative advice on visa matters and application formalities. In many cases a condition of making a successful application for a research visa and research approval is submitting a synopsis that includes a detailed thematic and chronological research plan, a specific list of partners and partner institutions in the given country at the same time as presenting the application documentation. In some contexts the local partner institution acts as guarantor that the  holder of the visa will comply with the conditions of the visa and research approval. For this reason it is also important for the partner institution to be informed fully and in good time. In many cases the applicant is required to present their study or research plans in person to institutions of a ministry of culture or education, immigration authorities, clearing offices or a joint committee of these authorities.

Obtaining a visa can require the holder to report to certain authorities in the destination country after arrival. Depending on their research plan, the holder may also have to report when changing location or phases of research. Examples of such authorities include immigration authorities, research or education ministries, municipal authorities or local police stations.

In many countries rules are in place to regulate the export or utilisation of samples and materials, such as soil samples, plants, rock samples, corals, animals and insects. Such rules may even apply to social-scientific data. Particular attention should be given to customs rules and regulations governing imports and exports for the partner country concerned. In certain countries, samples, materials and data from social sciences surveys must remain in the country, even where collected in research cooperation partnerships, and be evaluated in local laboratories or institutions. These issues should be discussed prior to initiating a cooperation partnership and included in subsequent cooperation agreements and project plans.

B. Level of internationalisation and international positioning

As well as considering a partner institution’s academic priorities and its infrastructure and equipment, thought should be given when initiating international partnerships to an institution’s degree of internationalisation, its international reputation and the networks of which it is a part. Strategies and measures are in place in many countries at national, regional and local levels to boost internationalisation. These are good indicators when appraising the opportunities to be gained from a partnership.

Funding programmes and calls for applications in partner countries are of particular interest, as these can be used where necessary to obtain co-funding or follow-on funding and thereby optimise or expand existing partnerships.

Rankings provide an initial guide to the international performance of a higher education system. Even if their restricted perspectives and occasional lack of methodological transparency leave rankings open to criticism (something that is very widespread in Germany), the fact remains that they are the only available resource that permits comparative evaluation of higher education institutions around the world. In any case, the annually updated rankings do attract high levels of attention and in many countries they form the basis for choosing a course of study. As a first point of reference, rankings are certainly suitable, but it is also worth looking at the total portfolio of international cooperation projects in a country.

Detailed information on the strengths and weaknesses of the various rankings systems is included in the DAAD’s analysis of international higher education rankings, their background, methodology and placings of German higher education institutions (in German).

C. Fit between educational and research interests and the German academic system

The core element with regard to (C) is how much benefit in academic terms is expected to be gained from cooperating with a partner institution in a given higher education system. In this regard it may prove advantageous if similar structures and priorities obtain in the partner country as do in Germany, as this makes cooperation easier and minimises losses due to friction and misunderstandings. Nevertheless it may equally be of great interest to be active in a country where the political and regulatory environments and/or academic focuses and research structures are markedly different from an institution’s home system. This may involve natural characteristics such as the presence of a specific object of investigation or wider political and regulatory environments for research that could, for example, make it possible to achieve outcomes that would be impossible in Germany. It might also involve the existence of research infrastructure where shared use could create considerable synergies, for instance. Ideally, these would generate complementarity that makes it possible to expand your own research options and outcomes.

One core element of the structural fit/complementarity of a given system is the administrative and bureaucratic structures that shape the academic work and activity of higher education stakeholders. Engaging with the governance of a higher education institution, its administrative structures and the underlying sociocultural concepts of hierarchies can help understand the specific wider cultural and regulatory environments of a partner institution. This also includes concrete processes and procedures. For example, difficulties with financial transactions may emerge from differing accounting practices or invoicing structures. In some cases, large quantities of cash may be used which in turn entails obvious risks for the staff employed to work on a project. Thought should be given in advance to finding solutions to hurdles such as these.

D. Quality assurance and recognising degrees

The Bologna Process has brought about great harmonisation of structures and processes in higher education and quality assurance within Europe, and its impact is being felt outside the continent, too. The universal transition to a two-stage study system has also led to high levels of convergence as regards recognising degrees. It is significantly easier to compare and comprehend higher education systems around the world of today than it was even 20 years ago. Inter-state regulations were agreed and national guidelines were drawn up for international cooperation formats such as double degrees and processes for awarding joint doctoral degrees. Yet despite a process of convergence that has led to the creation of comparable quality assurance and processes in many countries, substantial differences still remain today when it comes to handling regulatory processes and their interpretation at a country-by-country level. This cluster of issues is critical to the success of any cooperation, so engaging with it must proceed beyond thinking only about processes and terminology at a superficial level. What is required is becoming familiar with and understanding the underlying practices and associated cultural contexts.

In this regard it is very helpful to seek out opportunities to speak not only to immediate project partners (such as the university teachers responsible for a cooperation project) but also to become familiar with the national and local structures concerned. It is also the case in other countries that different stakeholders such as academics, researchers, students, administrative staff, higher education managers and even representatives of the overarching ministries take very different views of the processes to be applied and how binding those processes are. The deeper the insight gained in the course of the partnership, the more likely it becomes that disappointments will not arise and, if issues and problems do emerge, these will be able to be resolved amicably.

In other regions there are regional quality assurance cooperation partnerships and national quality assurance and accreditation processes that should be considered at an early stage, particularly
when developing curricula.

E. Value of foreign languages and intercultural skills

Even if English is the lingua franca of international academia, business fluency in the language of the host country is an invaluable bonus when setting up a cooperation. Naturally, this cannot be expected in all circumstances, but it is still worth showing a certain level of interest in the language and culture of your partner country. Even rudimentary language skills can help break the ice. Language is the essential key to understanding a foreign culture and deserves an appropriate level of attention.

Intercultural sensitivity is an important requirement for the establishment of successful cooperation partnerships with international partners, and its significance increases in inverse proportion to the level of understanding and prior knowledge of the culture concerned. In constellations such as these, it is paramount not just to build on the level of academic and professional matters. Instead, time and effort should be invested in developing personal relationships. In many countries, particularly those outside the European cultural milieu in Africa, Asia or Latin America, for example, cooperation partnerships and their associated contractual agreements are founded on relationships of mutual trust between individuals. Such relationships demand careful development for the long-term and intensive nurturing of contacts. Academics and researchers should therefore be prepared to invest time and interest in social aspects such as getting to know their counterparts and personal exchange – and they should also be given appropriate support to do so.

The level of confidence in planning and occasionally differing conceptions of time and resource allocations are other aspects that should be considered when initiating a cooperation. Even if you are not 100% confident in the robustness of your plans, this can still create space to develop new outcomes that can generate creative thinking and innovations.

F. Academic freedom and responsibility

In the context of academic freedom and academic responsibility, existing censorship structures and systemic pressure represent key points for reflection, as these may lead to self-censorship. Those planning partnerships should be aware of such wider environmental and structural factors so as to avoid exposing themselves or their cooperation partners to potential risks due to insensitive behaviour. Where a decision is taken not to accept or extend a cooperation arrangement, and this is made on the grounds of academic freedom or with justified concerns about academics and researchers who are vilified or persecuted, the very application of ‘red lines’ could actually harm those very people who oppose a restrictive and authoritarian system. It is often the case that those progressive forces which insist on the autonomy of higher education institutions and on the freedom of academia succeed in finding inventive and courageous niches in which opposition, criticism and pluralistic discourses can continue to be developed in creative ways. Generalising conceptualisations that treat higher education spaces ‘en bloc’ entail the risk of following a paternalistic model. For this reason, open conversations with partners are a good way to make decisions together.

G. Autonomy of academic institutions; H. Funding systems

One critical aspect to be considered as part of evaluation and assessment processes concerns the degree of autonomy (G) of academic institutions. How independently are the individual academics and researchers able to act at faculty level? What structures for incentivisation and funding are available? What requirements must be fulfilled in order to achieve academic degrees? How transparent and free is the process for assigning topics for dissertations and doctoral theses in a higher education institution? Are interventions made when selecting topics for publications or conference programmes? However, issues such as these should not be considered independently of the national and regional contexts. Thought should always be given to the academic socialisation of the generation of higher education stakeholders with which you are working, whether directly or indirectly. Such reflections should then be integrated into how you act, especially where they impinge on the basis of your own conception of academia.

Quite apart from the international standards by which both partners in a cooperation should abide, it is wise to reflect on the claims to universality of a European or Western conceptualisation of academia or academic system, giving particular attention to post-colonial perspectives. Such discourses exist in a permanent state of tension between cultural relativism and eurocentrism, and they should be conducted in a way that includes critical consideration of both these dimensions. It is also important to address questions of academic autonomy and research standards at an early stage when understanding the cultural character and academic traditions of a country. Furthermore, any potential differences should be raised transparently and explicitly with the cooperation partner – with the appropriate tact for their sociocultural character.

I. Ethical guidelines

These aspects come into sharp focus when it comes to defining ethical guidelines for an international cooperation or drafting specific cooperation agreements. How can proper consideration be given to a partner’s day-to-day life and academic traditions, while still defining the shared regulatory and structural framework for the cooperation on the basis of one’s own core values and constitutional requirements (such as Art. 5 (3) sentence 1 of the Basic Law) in a meaningful and balanced way? On which points of conflict is it possible to find a common denominator in spite of differing positions? In such contexts it is particularly important to be mindful of your own motivations. The assessment process described above should take place candidly and free from either partner’s own research or cooperation interests. While these are legitimate, they should be transparently considered when taking a decision.

Furthermore, medicine in particular is subject to national or institutional ethical guidelines and decision-making processes in many countries. These should be considered at an early stage when planning cooperation projects.

J. Industrial and scientific espionage; K. Civilian/military connections in higher education and ‘dual-use’

Recent years have seen greater awareness around potential risks to intellectual property and honest use of research results. The unlawful appropriation of data, information and research results can be brought about through espionage or hacking attacks on interfaces that lack proper protection.

Increased awareness of the need to protect one’s own data and to develop encryption and security infrastructure has arisen following cases that have been reported to the police and prosecuted before the courts. Where such activity is suspected, higher education institutions can access contact and information services from the responsible authorities. The most important of these are the Federal Criminal Police Office, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz and local state criminal offices; these can also provide assistance when discussing suitable preventative measures. The Initiative Wirtschaftsschutz and the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) raise awareness about measures that can be put in place to protect data, research results and developments.

In this context, robust physical and digital security infrastructure is an important preventative measure, as are clearly regulated and exclusive access management and raising awareness around these issues among colleagues and staff.

At the same time, measures to raise awareness and provide information about security structures should not become a hotbed for any kind of universal suspicion or subliminal scepticism. Protecting the intellectual property of all participating partners against being accessed or used illegally by third parties should be defined by reference to cooperation agreements for the use of research results. Such protections can form the focus of awareness-raising and protection measures.

This may also refer to the use of research findings for military purposes. Civilian/military links in the higher education sector of a partner country may not always be obvious or easy to identify for local stakeholders. As regards ‘dual-use’ issues, ‘red lines’ are defined by sanctions, non-proliferation provisions and export controls.

In the wide-ranging grey area of civilian/military connections it is a self-evident question of academic responsibility to consider contextual factors and debate the potential consequences of the use of data, products and developments by third parties. Here it is down to each higher education institution to decide for itself where it will draw ‘red lines’ depending on the extent and nature of the links between the university sector and military institutions and research facilities.

Criterion 1: The wider security situation

The presented criteria catalog is built upon the foundational dimension of personal safety, encompassing key factors essential for safety considerations.

Criterion 2: Wider political imperatives

In the presented criteria catalog, thorough consideration is given to both the overarching political classification and a detailed security analysis, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation.

Criterion 3: Constitutional and sociopolitical framework

Global scientific partnerships necessitate cultural sensitivity and legal acumen. Further training support contributes to proficiency in these aspects.

Criterion 5: Performance and fit of the academic partner institution(s)

Criterion 5 evaluates academic partners’ performance and fit through rankings, education analyses, and bibliometric databases.

Criterion 6: Integration into institutional strategies

Professional cooperation management requires integration into the overall institutional strategy. This includes adaptability and openness.