A fundamental interest in the field research has been to distinguish the formats of transnational cooperation among Russian and EU-based research institutes engaged in foreign and security policy. The amount of general acts of cooperation among these research institutes is considerably higher than the amount of explicit project-based interaction. This hypothesis that has been established and validated throughout the interviews conducted during field-research (Interviewee B; Interviewee C; Interviewee S).
For this thesis, general acts of cooperation include seminars, conferences, and simple collaboration on edited books and articles. Project-based cooperation encompasses defined research projects with a clearcut multilateral framework. They consist of a sequence of cooperative activities that contribute to the same formulated target. In common terms they are finalised with the output of a project report. They often dedicate an own website that holds information on their aim, participants and output. These projects are generally found (but must not necessarily) to be named with an abbreviation of their full title, that is accessible and memorable.
In this regard, the difference in numbers comes to some degree by definition, as general acts of cooperation include a range of activities while the scope of what defines project-based cooperation is rather limited. However, the respective definition is in so far suitable as it differentiates between two particular ways of interaction that differ in terms of conduction, aims and output. General acts of cooperation are more simple in nature and have the primary aim of information exchange, as well as partnership building and maintenance. Instead project-based cooperation asks for more commitment often over a longer timeframe and looks to establish or further expertise jointly. In this sense, in general practices of cooperation each researcher is more likely to contribute their own piece, while project based cooperation promotes the release of one shared contribution.
To further investigate the formats of transnational cooperation and examine how far the findings from the interviews translate into applied cooperation, a review of applied cooperation is conducted in the realm of this study. This is done in two ways. Firstly, by discussing general cooperative practices on the basis of a review of cooperative activities as discussed by research institutes in reports and on websites. This is exemplified in Annex 2, which offers a selected range of Russian and EU-based research institutes
working in the field of foreign and security policy, identifying general and project-based cooperation. Secondly, the chapter identifies a case study of project-based cooperation which has been established on the basis of the fieldwork interviews as well as a survey of the research organisations’ documents and websites. 17
Considering this review, it affirms that general cooperative practices are substantially more common than project based cooperation. The case for this can be made in both directions of the line of argument. First of all the number of cooperatively designed, launched and conducted projects with transnational partners is limited. Secondly, the amount of other general cooperative activities with transnational partners is significantly higher than the former. This is still true when considering a margin among acclaimed partnership and actual repeatedly utilised partnership (see Annex 2).
The differences occur due to the varying efforts and expenses that need to be invested for each cooperative action. Here the overarching rule is that the more self-sufficient a project can be set up and conducted, the less effort and expense it is likely to incur. However, at the same time this might lower the quality of the output. Instead the output generally gains through increased cooperation with other actors for an event. Thereby the pool of (first hand) knowledge as well as audience and funding may be broadened (Interviewee C;
Interviewee O; Interviewee E). Thus increased cooperations induces a perception of higher value of the event among the broad majority of the interviewees.
The differences in numbers among project-based interaction and general interaction is applicable in both scenarios within the EU and beyond. However, when looking at cooperation among EU based and Russian research institutes the amount of explicit project-based interaction in foreign politics is particularly small. Also general types of cooperation are fewer, but they still constitute a multiple of the project-based interaction (see Annex 2). The two main explanations for this are the considerably higher number of research institutes in the EU. And beyond that Russian political research institutes are faced with more restricted opportunities to conduct projects of their liking (Interviewee A).
Instead, inside the EU is a much more developed network among research institutes, both at national and transnational level.
The geographic focus lies on cooperation between EU member state based and Russian research
17
institutes, and the time-limit is going back at the most to 2008 to ensure relevance. The section is based on findings made in interviews, and data found on research institutes’ websites as well as in media reports.
With regard to interaction among European and Russian foreign policy research institutes Germany represents one of the strongest partners. Many leading German research institutes have a rich history of partnership with Russian institutes. This concerns research institutes of various types, like the leading Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, but also the party affiliated think tanks like Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, or University affiliated researchers for example from the University of Bielefeld. Moreover a lot of German foundations have established country-offices in Russia, which emphasises their involvement in many transnational projects. They help through funding, organisation, providing venues and their good name. Furthermore Russian institutes developed a strong exchange with Polish institutes. Though political cooperation has been strained for a long time, the proximity of the two countries and Poland’s rising position of influencing the EU’s politics towards Russia have led to the recognition of need for dialogue. In the same sense Russian institutes develop relations with institutes from the Baltic countries as well as the Nordic countries, due to a common interest in the Baltic Sea as well as the Arctic (Interviewee R; Interviewee S). The exchange with institutes from the Baltic and the Nordic States has increased the recognition of at least considering Russia’s position when having talks about the Northern Dimension in the EU. Interestingly, British research institutes have also developed a strong scholarship on Russia and cooperated with Russian institutes, even though the geographical and historical factors do not particularly speak for a proximity of the two countries. However, academic institutes, but also leading London think tanks, conduct comprehensive research on Russia and enter cooperation with Russian researchers (examples are King’s College, University of Birmingham, University of Glasgow, St. Andrews University, Chatham House).
Despite all the positive examples, the interviews have specified that the level of cooperation increases with a change of topical focus towards science and technology.
Furthermore, it increases when looking at interaction between Russian research institutes and their Asian and American colleagues (Interviewee M; Interviewee E). Thus the interest in as well as the demand for research in EU-Russia relations in the field of foreign and security policy is rather low currently, some would say barely existent (Interviewee M;
Interviewee H).
Importantly, while differentiating types of cooperation and determining the varying degrees to which these types occur, it is not the aim of the text to judge that one is more (or less)
worth than the other. Instead this section only examines how the different types of cooperation look like and what they consist of. It is then part of the discussion in Chapter Six to establish what opportunities each of them provide and also what they lack.
Several types of general cooperative activities can be determined which occur as regular events on websites, in documents, and have been described in interviews. Most commonly research institutes set up projects that consist of round-tables and seminars, both single or in series. At these seminars a speaker presents research or opinion pieces on foreign policy issues of Russia, the EU, the EU Members States, or their common neighbourhood, which then leads to a debate with the audience. The presentations are mostly given by in house or domestic experts. However, for the cause of cooperation foreign experts may be invited to speak at times (Interviewee C; Interviewee Q). Examples are the European Dialogue at IMEMO, the Bertholt Beitz Centre seminars, or the Chatham House projects on Russia and Eurasia. This can take a more established form in terms of discussion groups and encourage a long-term format of organisation and participation. However, they are also more limited in membership. An example is the Grunewald Discussion Group. In Universities these talks often take the form of seminars that are conducted within a department which focuses on either European Studies, Russian Studies, or Central and Eastern European Studies. They appear as both long-term planned as well as ad hoc in reaction to current events (see Annex 2).
Another common occurrence in transnational cooperation is the cross-border support of projects through funding. Most Russian research institutes interviewed for this research have in some shape or form organised an event in cooperation with one of the German foundations present in Russia. Generally that would be the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung or the Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung (Interviewee C; Interviewee B; Interviewee S). Apart from this, sponsorship by the European Commission is also provided specifically in the range of the Partnership for Modernisation program as well as in higher education. An example for support on cooperative projects in higher education are the Tempus projects at St.
Petersburg University, or the European Centre at the Immanuael Kant Baltic Federal University (see Annex 2). These examples show the strong advantage of working transnationally through shared resources. However, conditions for interactions have been complicated through the decision of the Russian government to introduce the foreign agents law, that applies to all organisations funded by foreign donors (International Centre
for Not-For-Profit Law, 2014). This leaves an aftertaste for many organisations both foreign and domestic, and discourages domestic institutes to take funding from foreign institutes.
A further option for cooperation can be found in the traditional educational sector.
Throughout the interviews, education has generally been named as one of the most important channels and areas of impact that researcher institutes (especially of academic nature) can avail themselves of (Interviewee C; Interviewee A; Interviewee Q). The importance of this channel was recognised in raising awareness for common political issues, and providing early training for young adults to understand and discuss political issues in the multipolar international environment. Beyond that, research institutes also see further opportunities in this sector, for example interaction with other institutes often leads to some exchange of resources, through researchers/teachers exchange, exchange of research material, common research projects and shared funding. This is encouraged as mentioned above, for example through EU Commission funding for TEMPUS or Erasmus Mundus Projects, as well as the buildup of European Studies Centres in Russia (see Annex 2).
However, it must be noted that the accessibility of resources also varies in this sector. On the one hand, funding may be more readily available for student/early career events, however, the amount is still limited and rarely covers the costs that meet the participants of a transnational event. At the same time, language has often been named as the most obvious disruptive aspect in resource exchange. Many Russian projects and materials are produced in the Russian language. In the same way, many European countries produce documents and materials in their home-base language, however, throughout the EU the amount of material produced in English as a common language is significantly higher than in Russia. This is a restrictive system in which limited funding for translation in smaller activities hampers the reach of reports, documents and project outputs (Interviewee A;
Interviewee L). However, this is something that can be tackled with the help of transnational projects in which documents and outputs are produced in several languages.
Moreover, interaction in the form of educational events can contribute in the long-run as well when they are complemented by language training.
Most common educational projects that universities as well as a number of think tanks and foundations establish or support are summer schools or youth conferences. These conference-like events are used to debate common interests and gain awareness of the
multinational character of most political issues. This aims not only to raise awareness of other positions, but also allows dialogue and cross-border contacts to be established early on. There are a number of Universities who offer these summer schools on EU-Russia relations on a recurring basis, like the European University of St. Petersburg, the University of Tartu, the University of Helsinki, and others. Moreover several think tanks and foundations offer conference-like events for exchange among young adults. An example is the Centre for International and Regional Politics (CIRP), St. Petersburg. This is a small think tank which encourages an annual summer or winter school for young adults from the Baltic countries. For the organisations based in St. Petersburg the focus on the Baltic partners is a common feature for cooperation. The summer school however, allows space to go beyond the Baltic region. The latest event for example concerns the EU’s and Russia’s shared neighbourhood and takes place in north-west Russia (Interviewee T).
Referring back to the three identified tasks of a research institute (in Chapter Four), the research on cooperative practices shows that most cooperative activities as discussed above serve the basic goal of information, learning about the respective other and trying to understand the respective others actions. It emphasises that informative, educational events with an opportunity for critical engagement seem most common and in this sense highlight the basic goals that the cooperation serves so far. Therein it also shows how much further research cooperation can progress. Moreover, it depicts a clear role for university affiliated institutes in encouraging and conducting cooperation across the borders between the EU and Russia. While current researchers spend a significant amount of time learning about the respective other, cooperation in university affiliated institutes offers new generations the chance to acquire an understanding of both the EU and Russia as well as their interplay early on (Interviewee A; Interviewee E; Interviewee K). This is particularly the case, as university affiliated research institutes in Russia seem more responsive to transnational cooperation with EU institutes. At the same time think tanks need to define their role at the transnational level better and expand it to more potential. Currently academic research institutes and think tanks seem to duplicate cooperative research methods to some extent, as becomes visible in the commonly used seminars and round-tables. The following case study assists to shed further light on the different roles of research institutes in cooperation.
While the cooperative practices are to some degree limited in their formats and purposes, they reflect what is possible in terms of cooperation within the current dominant discourse.
The activities represent a stage in the development of interaction among Russian and
EU-based research institutes, which is needed to stipulate the basis for cooperation. Therein, it is guided by reflection on cooperation and the political discourse in high politics as one of the topical foci.