Ivory tower or transdisciplinarity? Measuring the preferences of scientists at public research institutes regarding academic engagement

Increasingly complex societal challenges require more transdisciplinary collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Previous studies measured and categorized motivations driving researchers to choose projects involving practitioners and provided empirical evidence for the existence of the ‘puzzle-ribbon‑gold’ typology. However, neither well-known decision factors such as research funding and societal impact nor preferences on the terms of collaboration have yet been integrated in any researcher typology. Here, we use a discrete choice experiment to elicit the preferences of 862 researchers employed at German public research institutes (PRIs) over research project alternatives that vary in six attributes (funding volume, academic success, societal impact, knowledge transfer, knowledge co-production, and practitioner type), of which most had three levels (low, medium, high). We determine that scientists in our sample, on average, attach positive value to engaging with practitioners. However, their preferences are not homogeneous. We find that PRI researchers can be categorized in three latent classes: ‘changemakers’, who prioritise creating societal impact via public-sector knowledge co-production; ‘fundraisers’, who focus on acquiring financial resources by transferring knowledge to the private sector; and ‘scholars’, who concentrate on academic success and avoid practitioners. Thus, we derive inductively a researcher typology that accounts for so far neglected but demonstrably decision-relevant aspects, that is impact, funding, collaboration form, and partner type. Interestingly, various observable individual and contextual variables do not offer much additional information in terms of explaining preference heterogeneity. We conclude by discussing policy instruments to foster academic engagement as well as future research directions.