C OOPERATION BETWEEN P ERCEPTION AND E MPIRICS

In Chapters Four and Five a range of challenges towards transnational cooperation in wider Europe are identified. The first set of challenges is based on the experience and perception as expressed by the staff in research institutes. This has been investigated through interviews. The empirical study towards applied cooperation in Chapter Five validates these challenges, but importantly identifies several more. This indicates that there may be a lack of awareness or at least a misperception of some of the challenges among the research institutes involved in cooperation. In either case, it raises the problem that some of these challenges are not addressed and thus further limit the attainment and output of cross-border cooperation. The main question that arises from this is to what extend the interviewees understand the debilitating effects of these challenges. While this leaves some space for speculation, it has been found in interviews and the literature, that a number of the challenges named above have been recognised and partly addressed by some of the interviewees. What makes the significant difference at this point is, how far respective challenges are recognised, how far the respective challenges are addressed, and how significant the challenges are in shaping or denying the process of cooperation.

The following findings are based on the interviews and the study of applied cooperation as conducted through Annex 2 and the case study in Chapter Five. Challenges that have been acknowledged by institutes in their operation and cooperation at the transnational level encompass the following: reliance on soft-power, recurring debates from high politics, the need for an existing incentive framework, predominant interest in Russia-US relations among Russian research institutes, geographical dependence of interaction, and the questionable impact of a new generation of IR-specialists indicating a partial acknowledgement of underdeveloped transnationalisation (see Chapters Four and Five for a review of each of the challenges). The recognition of all of them has proven extensive in the interviews, but most of them have only a shaping impact on cooperative activities.

However, the reliance on soft-power and the need for an existing incentive framework have a strong influence on the initiation and shape of a cooperative project (Interviewee O;

Interviewee K). They represent the two challenges that may hinder the initiation of

cooperation before it begins. The reliance of soft-power jeopardises institutes’ abilities to gain support and resources for a project that is particularly costly and to some degree alien as it involves interaction across borders. Similarly, if the content of a research project is not framed in the current political debate and/or concerns pre-existing dialogue formats and patterns, then it is unlikely to gain the support and resources needed for the particularly costly and alien cross-border interaction (Interviewee A; Interviewee K; Interviewee M).

Among all the challenges that the institutes recognise, the three issues that they work to address are the recurring debates from high politics, their reliance on soft-power, and the predominant interest in Russia-US relations among Russian research institutes. The first one is sometimes addressed by conceptualising and operationalising all terms and topics of interaction beforehand to gain a common understanding, as well as by creating an intimate and trusted set up for the interaction where diplomatic language is not triggered (Interviewee C; Interviewee O; Interviewee R). The second is addressed by establishing connections and networks with politicians and representatives of the media and the social society. These may be single connections, or may take the form of epistemic communities with regard to certain policy issues (Interviewee K; Interviewee Q; Interviewee D). The third challenge is addressed as part of the research institutes’ work, using their tools to spread expertise and generate interest in subjects away from the political centre stage (Interviewee B; Interviewee E; Interviewee H; Interviewee P).

In turn the often lacking common development of concepts and operationalisation of communication in cooperative activities has only been acknowledged by a few interviewees as a challenge (Interviewee O; Interviewee A; Interviewee D). Moreover, even in projects where it is recognised, this does not mean that it will be addressed. A number of institutes prefer to give these debates a miss as they may be perceived as too costly on the grand scale. Or they may evoke the opposite effect and turn the focus of a cooperative activity towards a discussion of basic differences among the research cultures of the participants and therewith their socio-political environment (Interviewee Q). This challenge may not break cooperative activities, but has a high impact on the functional conduct of projects.

On the other hand, a number of challenges have not been acknowledged by the interviewees, including the predominance of general acts of cooperation, the duplication of cooperative efforts among institutes with differing attributes, and the failure to establish a

truly transnational research sphere (see Chapter Five). These challenges have been captured through the case study and a survey of the relevant literature. They are all functional in their nature and essential for effectively dealing with operation and cooperation in the transnational sphere. While they all present a challenge in themselves, aspect one and two both contribute to the shortcoming to establish a truly transnational research sphere.

Importantly, the lack of recognition prevents research institutes from addressing these challenges and thus diminishes their ability to make proactive use of the transnational sphere. This poses the question how far research institutes nurture the very limits of their cooperation. Or to put it differently, whether their shortcomings in recognising and addressing the challenges to cooperate at the transnational level imposes or reinforces the existing structure that becomes difficult to break as it has not been fully grasped so far. To understand their position however, we cannot only see research institutes as actors that set their own path, instead we also need to understand them as objects of the discourse within a broader (indeed multi-level) environment (Wright, 2006, p.104). This links to the post-structuralist approach that the thesis draws from, that follows Bourdieu’s understanding of the structure/agency nexus (Bourdieu, 1984, p. 170; Webb et al., 2002, p.36). Following his thoughts, the current composition of opportunities and challenges represents the current dominant dialogue. Research institutes have the ability to make an impact, if they can make a strong case. This is likely to turn out more successful it they were fully informed about the dominant dialogue they are operating in.

In this regard, research institutes diminish their ability to operate at the transnational level to a certain degree as they enter repetitive patterns of interaction which do not address these challenges. In addition, by not being clear about all the limits they face, they lower their abilities to challenge the current structure even more. At the same time they are part of a discourse in which they already need to fend for the position in which they are and for the cooperative measures they want to take. This highlights that the challenges that they face are at the same time bound to the opportunities that transnational cooperation offers them. In sum, the institutes could be better prepared if they had the full picture, and on that basis enter some new strategies to challenge the underlying discourse.

As a starting point they could look to address those challenges that they have a primary influence on, like the duplication of cooperative efforts among institutes with differing

attributes. However, the reliance on soft power and resources has a limiting effect on their progress on establishing different formats (Interviewee T; Interviewee H; Interviewee C;

Interviewee A). Further in this context, the overview gained thus far proposes that university affiliated institutes are currently most likely to be able to lead the way towards truly transnational cooperation, as they are most interested in gathering data and conducting fundamental research. To comply with their academic standards, they will have to consider how they go about collecting data in a comprehensive and unbiased manner (Interviewee K). While they also have to apply for funding, they have a little more freedom in comparison to quasi-governmental think tanks, to link their interests in cross-border interaction to a wide variety of educational purposes (Interviewee A; Interviewee E). In this regard, they are able to engage in long-term, project-based study that involves foreign partner institutes, and is based on the common academic approach of carefully considering concepts, terms and methods. Their environment currently provides the best-suited framework to set up truly transnational cooperation.

In this way, the research makes an important contribution as it determines inherent challenges to transnational cooperation among research institutes. Moreover, in highlighting that interaction is driven by an underlying discourse, it demonstrates that research institutes are only able to nurture their opportunities and limits to the degree that the discourse allows for.

A

-