An Eldorado for research – and bureaucracy

If you come to Germany from abroad on the strength of a Humboldt Foundation fellowship you form an impression of universities and research institutions as well as of general everyday conditions, and you get to know people in various different contexts on the spot. How open and tolerant are Germans in their dealings with their guests? How humorous, how bureaucratic, how progressive are they? How well equipped are the labs or libraries? What about working hours, childcare and career opportunities for junior researchers?

The evaluation

These are all questions the Humboldt Foundation asks its sponsorship-recipients in an online survey at the end of their sponsorship period. On average, researchers and their families spend approximately 18 months in Germany. The Humboldt Foundation has evaluated the feedback provided by more than 1,800 visiting researchers from 119 countries who worked at German universities and research institutions between August 2018 and May 2022. Just as in the previous survey in 2019, the responses reveal that Germany and its science system are judged very positively, not least in comparison with other countries. The potential for improvement with regard to bureaucracy, for example, identified four years ago, is still relevant.

Research location: Germany

Without exception, Germany scores very well as a science location in comparison with the other countries. On a scale from zero to ten, there are top scores for infrastructure (8.1 as an average of all respondents), quality of research (8.3), project financing opportunities (8.3), internationality and childcare (both 8.0). The results vary significantly according to the fellows’ regions of origin. At 8.6, sponsorship recipients from Asia, for example, rate the quality of research higher than those from North America (7.1). Also positive, although not so high, are scores for professional prospects and dual career options (both 6.8) as well as the promotion of junior researchers (7.4).

Strengths and weakness in comparison with the 2019 study

Country of origin is still an important criterion in assessing the conditions in Germany. In this context, there have only been very slight changes. On nearly all points, however, sponsorship-recipients from North America rate Germany somewhat better than in the previous evaluation rounds covering 2013 to 2018. On a global scale, the evaluation of the host country has remained stable. Professional prospects and general conditions in Germany enjoy better ratings than in 2019, even in comparison with other parts of the world. By contrast, the evaluation of the situation of young researchers reveals that the promotion of junior researchers and dual-career opportunities continue to be rated as moderately good.

Impressive infrastructure, but not in all areas

The infrastructure and facilities at universities and research institutions continue to be highly rated (8.1). The increasing lack of nursery and daycare places, on the other hand, is seen by the visiting researchers as a stress factor: “By becoming German for a while, we learned the difficulties people in Berlin are increasingly experiencing: we almost couldn’t find a Kita for our two kids” (Netherlands, m). Overall, childcare is rated slightly worse than it was in the last evaluation period, although together with other work-life balance criteria, in international terms it is still good (8.9). The evaluation of working hours has improved slightly in comparison with the previous evaluation period to 7.7 points. On the topics of climate protection and resource conservation, International Climate Protection sponsorship-recipients were surveyed specifically. Here, too, the trend in their perception of Germany is positive (8.6)

Features associated with Germany: pro science, tolerant and even humorous

Asked what they associated with Germany on a scale from minus five to plus five, Germany emerged as very science friendly (4.2 on average), democratic (3.8), gender equal (3.2), hospitable (2.8) and tolerant (2.7). When it came to sense of humour (1.2) and openness (0.8), the responses were not so positive. The respondents also rate Germany as somewhat less progressive and hospitable than at the last evaluation in 2019.

One negative trend in the overall evaluation is striking: Germany is largely seen as a bureaucratic country (-1.3). In comparison with the last survey covering the period 2012 to 2018, this score dropped by 0.6 points. The worst score in this category came from sponsorship recipients from North America (-3.2) whilst the fellows from Asia rated Germany as not quite as bureaucratic (0.6) as the respondents from other parts of the world.

Focus on country: region and nation not the same

When examining individual countries, it becomes clear how diverse the perspectives within one and the same region can be. In Europe, researchers from Italy (7.6), Spain (7.6) and Poland (7.4) rate the professional prospects in Germany significantly better than their colleagues in Scandinavia (6.3) and North America. Whilst of all those surveyed, researchers from the United States give this aspect the lowest rating (5.1), in comparison with their colleagues from other countries they rate working hours (7.79) and childcare provision (8.1) in Germany as above average. The responses from emerging economies like China and India, which are also appreciative of the good work-life balance in Germany, are similar. Although the answers globally cannot be ascribed to regional clusters, one group stands out: the fewest advantages in comparison with their own countries are registered by researchers from Scandinavia, France and the United Kingdom.

„Sometimes, very simple things turn into Kafkaesque situations”

Individual points of criticism focus on three problematic fields: language barrier, bureaucracy and discrimination
Sponsorship-recipients were asked to comment freely on their personal experiences and express their criticisms of the focus areas. Of the more than 1,800 participants in the survey, 1,554 answered the open question “What were the negative aspects of your stay in Germany?” appropriately. The most frequent points of criticism were language barrier, bureaucracy and discrimination. Especially outside of academia, the lack of foreign language skills is often identified as a problem which makes the necessary dealings with authorities more difficult:

Bureaucracy, the only negative value on the scale from minus five to plus five, also stands out in the comments. The overall decline by 0.6 points and, in the case of survey respondents from Sub-Saharan Africa by as much as 1.2, demonstrates that this assessment is shared equally  by industrialised countries, emerging economies and developing countries. Even though the explanations in the comments are different, they demonstrate that action is necessary in this area:

With regard to discrimination and racism, the answers show that the overall figure (6%) for relevant comments has barely changed in comparison with the last evaluation. Sponsorship recipients hailing from countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (10%) found themselves most frequently confronted with discrimination or xenophobia. Sponsorship recipients holding European nationality (4%) were affected least frequently.

At 6.2 percent, women mention discriminatory aspects somewhat more often than men (5.1%). In the comments, they specifically refer to gender-related discrimination:

Positive outcomes despite the pandemic 

The Covid pandemic also fell within the evaluation period and its effects elicited responses in almost half the comments. It is noteworthy that women more frequently reported on negative experiences than men; the responses also differed greatly according to region of origin: at 51.8 percent, people with Central or South American nationality were most frequently negative, those with Asian nationality (25%) least frequently. But the comments differ greatly with regard to intention and quality. A negative comment may, on the one hand, refer to the impact on private life or the research stay, on the other hand, to the way the pandemic was managed in comparison with the commentators’ own countries. Some of those surveyed were particularly critical of the “Querdenker movement and the number of people who did not respect the Covid restrictions” (Brazil, m). However, most of the comments do not address the Covid safeguards or the failure to comply with them but the impact on everyday research work and integration in everyday life:

Although the questionnaire specifically asked for negative experiences and concomitant suggestions for improvement, apart from pandemic-related circumstances and structural criticism, there were also numerous positive comments – not least about the conditions of research and life as well as about the Foundation’s work: