“How does research integration work?” RESULTS OF THE ... Conf… · 4 • “Consortium...

“How does research integration work?”

RESULTS OF THE SURVEY CONDUCTED AMONG THE 34 NETWORKS OF EXCELLENCE AND INTEGRATED PROJECTS

FUNDED UNDER FP6 (PRIORITY 7)

June 2008

The survey and the conference were funded by the Network of Excellence CONNEX

Survey directors

Dr. Fabrice Larat, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim (Project Manager of the Network of Excellence CONNEX)

Prof. Jakob Edler, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of

Manchester (Member of the Integrated Project PRIME) Diagrams

Thomas Schneider, University of Mannheim (CONNEX Project) Survey programming

Ragnar Lie, ARENA, University of Oslo (CONNEX and RECON Projects)

INTRODUCTION On June 17th, 2008, a conference was hold in Brussels upon the invitation of Fabrice Larat

and Jakob Edler under the title “How does research integration work? Assessing the work and

impact of FP6 new instruments in the field of social sciences and humanities”. It gathered

representatives of many academics who have been in charge of major projects funded under

FP6, as well as officials from DG research and analysts of research policy.1

Almost five years after the introduction of the FP6 New Instruments that are Networks of

Excellence and Integrated Projects, and whilst the first funded projects are coming to their

end, it was time to take stock of the ways these New Instruments have been working and to

consider how to evaluate their performances in an appropriate way.

Accordingly, the objectives of this conference were as follows:

1 See conference programme and list of participants at http://www.connex-network.org/research-integration/

1

http://www.connex-network.org/research-integration/

- To bring clarification regarding the meaning and purpose of research integration (with a

focus on social science),

- To scrutinize the different management strategies and forms of organisation that

contribute to making research integration work,

- To discuss the validity and relevance of performance indicators when evaluating the

project’s outcomes and impact,

- To demonstrate the merit of large research instruments, such as NoEs and IPs.

BACKGROUND

The so-called New Instruments (Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence) were an

overall priority means of FP6 for attaining the objectives of critical mass, management

simplification and pean added value contributed by Community research in relation to what

already has been undertaken at national level, and of the integration of the research

capacities.2 They were the cornerstones of the funding stream “Integrating Research” as the

largest part of FP6, which accounted for 80% of the total budget. According to the

Commission’s objectives, this integration is to be accomplished by carrying out research

projects that have an “integrating effect on the researchers and their organisations”.

Thus, integration of research – although never fully defined and operationalised – was meant

to be achieved through pean funded large projects. This became the foundation of the overall

goal of the pean Research Area (ERA) to create a genuine pean 'internal market' for research

in order to increase pan-pean co-operation and co-ordination of national research activities.

Consequently, each proposal seeking funds from the Framework Programme not only had to

prove its excellence and compliance with the thematic priorities of the relevant call, but to

demonstrate its contribution to those structuring ERA goals.

Scholars in charge of coordinating Networks of Excellence (NoE) and Integrated Projects (IP)

are therefore confronted with high expectations of “integration”, while building their

consortium, designing and conducting their joint programme of activities and, last but not

least, when being evaluated. Yet, research integration is not only a ‘political’ objective with

regards to the projects’ impact. It is also an organisational challenge for the project

coordinators, since in large multi-disciplinary projects covering broad topics and involving

2 Council decision (2002/834/EC) of 30 September 2002, adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: ‘Integrating and strengthening the European Research Area’ (2002-2006).

2

numerous scholars, the different parts (research groups, clusters, etc.) and stances of research

(e.g. different academic traditions and disciplinary approaches) have to be integrated in order

to produce a meaningful outcome.

THE SURVEY

Prior to the conference, a survey – aiming at investigating under which conditions research

integration in large research projects works, or fails – has been conducted to collect

information on the experience made by project coordinators in this field.

The coordinators of each of the 34 Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence funded under

Priority 7 (Social Sciences and Humanities) of FP 6 were asked to fill in a questionnaire online.

The purpose of this questionnaire was to explore the main dimensions of collaborative projects

related to the issue of social and cognitive integration and its impacts in terms of advancement of

research, scientific community building and contribution to the pean Research Area.

This survey solely follows scientific intentions and seeks to contribute to improve practical and

theoretical knowledge on the way research integration works in large collaborative projects and

what are its implications.

The resulting document that present the survey results is structured around 7 sections dealing with

specific aspects of scientific collaboration in large projects that are relevant for knowledge

generation and knowledge integration.

a) General information b) Consortium composition and rationals behind the IP / NoE c) Decision-making and procedures applied d) Organisation and leadership e) Appropriate forms and modes of communication f) Incentives for and obstacles to cooperation g) Additional information

FURTHER INFORMATION

Further to the present document, first elements of analysis of the results as well as additional

information on some related aspects on the topic “research integration” are available for

downloading at the following internet address: http://www.connex-network.org/research-integration/

• „The Commission’s objectives and expectations“: Jean-Michel Baer, DG Research • “Reflections on research integration”: F. Larat, University of Mannheim; J. Edler,

Manchester University

3

http://www.connex-network.org/research-integration/

4

• “Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects” : Slava Mikhaylov, Trinity College Dublin

• “Decision making and procedures applied”: Sergio Carrera, CEPS Brussels • “Organisation and leadership”: Ragnar Lie, University of Oslo • “Appropriate forms and modes of communication”: Denis Bouget, MSH Nantes • “Incentives for and obstacles to cooperation; Efforts for continuation; Self assessment by

Coordinators”: Jakob Edler, University of Manchester • Testing a conceptual framework using PRIME as an example: Terttu Luukkonen,

ETLA; Maria Nedeva, University of Manchester • Findings from the CONNEX statistical network analysis: Beate Kohler-Koch,

University of Mannheim.

THE DATA SET

Name of the Integrated Projects and Networks of Excellence having filled in the questionnaire:

Project Instrument Budget in € Coordinating institution 1. ACRE IP 4.5 Mio. Universiteit van Amsterdam 2. CAPRIGHT IP 3.97 Mio. CNRS 3. CHALLENGE IP 4.5 Mio. CERI, Paris

4. CINEFOGO NoE 3.9 Mio. University of Roskilde 5. CLIOHRES NoE 4.5 Mio. University of Pisa 6. CONNEX NoE 3.5 Mio. University of Mannheim 7. DYLAN IP 4.91 Mio. Université de Lausanne

8. EMILIA IP 3.4 Mio. Middlesex University 9. EQUALSOC NoE 4.1 Mio. SOFI, Uppsala 10. EU-Consent NoE 3.7 Mio. University of Cologne 11. DITE IP 3.7 Mio. University of Birmingham 12. SPHERE IP 4.06 Mio. Universitett i Bergen 13. FEMCIT IP 3.99 Mio. Universitett i Bergen 14. GARNET NoE 5.4 Mio. University of Warwick 15. IMISCOE NoE 4.5 Mio. University of Amsterdam 16. INCLUD-ED IP 3.36 Mio. Universitat de Barcelona 17. INTUNE IP 3.9 Mio. University of Siena 18. KNOWandPOL IP 4.0 Mio. KU Leuven 19. LINEE NoE 5.0 Mio. Institut fuer Sprachwissenschaft, Bern 20. LLL2010 IP 3.2 Mio. Tallinn University

21. MICROCON IP 4.0 Mio. Institute of Development Studies, Sussex

22. MICRO-DYN IP 3.61 Mio. Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies

23. NEWGOV IP 3.85 Mio. EUI 24. PRIME NoE 5.5 Mio. ENPC

25. QUING IP 3.98 Mio. Institut für die Wissenschaft vom Menschen, Wien

26. RAMSES NoE 3.4 Mio. University of Aix-en-Provence 27. RECON IP 5.0 Mio. ARENA, Oslo 28. RECWOWE NoE 4.0 Mio. University of Nantes 29. REFGOV IP 3.9 Mio. KU Leuven 30. SHARELIFE IP 5.0 Mio. University Mannheim 31. WORKS IP 3.8 Mio. KU Leuven

mailto:[email protected]

SURVEY RESULTS GENERAL INFORMATION

Kind of Instrument

NoE11

35%

IP20

65%

NoEIP

Duration

3 years1

3%

4 years12

39%

5 years16

52%

Other2

6%

3 years4 years5 yearsOther

5

Number of partner institutions

0

1

2

3

4

9 12 13 14 15 17 18 21 23 24 28 29 30 32 35 40 42 45 49 50

Number of partner institutions

Freq

uenc

y

Partner institutions

(mean: 22.4)

NoE

nr. partners count % 9 1 9,1%

14 1 9,1%23 1 9,1%29 1 9,1%30 1 9,1%40 1 9,1%42 2 18,1%45 1 9,1%49 1 9,1%50 1 9,1%

Sum 11 100,0%(mean: 30,3)

IP

nr. partners count % 12 2 10%13 2 10%14 1 5%15 2 10%17 4 20%18 1 5%21 1 5%23 1 5%24 2 10%28 1 5%29 1 5%32 1 5%35 1 5%

Sum 20 100,0%(mean:19,8)

6

Number of individuals involved

Less than 503

10%

51 to 10013

42%

100 to 1505

16%

151 or more10

32%

Less than 5051 to 100100 to 150151 or more

NoE Less than 50 0 0,0%51 to 100 1 9,1%100 to 150 0 0,0%151 or more 10 90,9%Sum 11 100,0%

IP Less than 50 3 15%51 to 100 12 60%100 to 150 5 25%151 or more 0 0,0%Sum 20 100,0%

7

Number of countries involved

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 23 24 29 35

Number of countries

Freq

uenc

y

Number of countries involved

(mean: 15.7)

NoE nr. countries count %

9 1 9,1%11 1 9,1%14 1 9,1%15 1 9,1%16 1 9,1%17 2 18,2%19 1 9,1%23 1 9,1%24 1 9,1%35 1 9,1%

Sum 11 100,0%(mean: 18.2)

IP

nr. countries count % 8 1 5%

11 2 10%12 3 15%13 2 10%14 5 25%15 3 15%16 2 10%19 1 5%29 1 5%

Sum 20 100,0%(mean: 14.4)

8

SECTION 1: CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION+RATIONALS BEHIND THE IP / NOE

Choice of partner institutions First Most important

00%

618%

1133%

13%

ReputationSize

26% Geographical location

Scientific expertiseExisting cooperationsOther

1340%

NoE IP Reputation 5 1 Size 0 1 Geographical location 1 1 Scientific expertise 2 12 Existing cooperation 5 7 Other 0 0

First+Second most important

1925%

34%

912%

2633%

2026%

00%

ReputationSizeGeographical locationScientific expertiseExisting cooperationsOther


9

First+Second+Third most important

2119%

66%

2624%30

27%

2422%

22%

ReputationSizeGeographical locationScientific expertiseExisting cooperationsOther


Choice of individual participants

First Most important

1541%

1439%

13%

26%

00%

13%

38%

Academic ExcellenceExpertise in relevant research topicsNational affiliationOrganisational affiliationDisciplinary affiliationLanguage proficienciesOther

NoE IP Academic Excellence 7 9 Expertise in research topics 3 12 National affiliation 0 1 Organisational affiliation 1 1 Disciplinary affiliation 0 0 Language proficiencies 0 1 Other 1 2

10


2533%

2634%

811%

57%

79%

11%

45%




2824%

2925%

1816%

109%

1614%

98%

54%



11

7 Level of involvement

Which level of involvement really matters fort he goals of your IP / NoE ?

Level of involvement

410%

1435%

2255%

Legal entity (universities)Research group / labIndividual researchers

NoE IP Legal entity 1 3 Research group / lab 5 9 individual researchers 8 15

12

8 Participant motivation – Expansion of own research capacity How important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the

IP / NoE - With regards to: Expansion of own research capacity 8.1.: Need for complementary knowledge and expertise 8.2.: Access to equipment and jointly developed infrastructure 8.3.: Availability of funding (for research, research integration, training etc) 8.4.: Continuation of previous cooperation

15

0

11 11

13

8

15

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4.

Very strongStrong

NoE Very

strong Strong 8.1. 4 6 8.2. 0 4 8.3. 4 5 8.4. 5 4

IP Very

strong Strong 8.1. 12 7 8.2. 0 5 8.3. 7 11 8.4. 7 10

13

1

9

2

1

2

13

3

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 8.4.

Very weakWeak

NoE Very weak Weak 8.1. 1 0 8.2. 2 5 8.3. 0 2 8.4. 0 2

IP Very weak Weak 8.1. 0 2 8.2. 7 8 8.3. 2 1 8.4. 1 3

14

9 Participant motivation – Improving available scientific knowledge How important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the

IP / NoE - With regards to: Improving available scientific knowledge

11

14

11

15

0 0

8

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

9.1. 9.2.

Very strongStrongVery weakWeak

9.1.: Overcoming research fragmentation 9.2. Conducting focused research in an appropriate way

NoE Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 9.1. 5 2 0 3 9.2. 2 8 0 1

IP Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 9.1. 6 10 0 5 9.2. 13 7 0 1

15

10 Participant motivation - Enhancing visibility and prestige How important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the

IP / NoE with regards to: Enhancing visibility and prestige

8

1

4

23

12

10

0

2

4

0

15

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

10.1. 10.2. 10.3.


10.1. Access to academic excellence 10.2. Cannot afford being absent of large research projects 10.3. Enhance visibility as compared to research conducted outside pe

NoE Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 10.1. 3 8 0 0 10.2. 0 4 2 4 10.3. 2 1 1 6

IP Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 10.1. 6 15 0 0 10.2. 1 9 0 11 10.3. 2 10 3 5

16

11. Participant motivation - Scientific Community building How important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the

IP / NoE with regards to: Scientific Community building

7

13

0

11

17

14

10

12

0 0

3

2

6

4

16

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

11.1. 11.2. 11.3. 11.4.


11.1. Access to other communities 11.2. Building a transnational community 11.3. Establishing own research community in home country 11.4. Making international cooperation easier and more effective

NoE Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 11.1. 3 5 0 2 11.2. 5 5 0 1 11.3. 0 4 1 5 11.4. 4 3 1 3

IP Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 11.1. 5 12 0 4 11.2. 9 9 0 3 11.3. 0 7 2 11 11.4. 7 10 1 3

17

12. Participant motivation - Efficiency How important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the

IP / NoE with regards to: Efficiency

0

8

6

17

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

12.1.


12.1. Realising cost savings through synergy and/or shared infrastructure

Very

strong Strong Very weak Weak 12.1. NoE 0 1 2 8 12.1. IP 0 8 4 9

18

13. Participant motivation - Strengthening EU policies and building the ERA How important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the

IP / NoE with regards to: Strengthening EU policies and building the ERA

9

7

4

13

14 14

1 1 1

8

9

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

13.1. 13.2. 13.3.


13.1. Exploitation of results for EU policy making 13.2. Participation to policy debates 13.3. Building the ERA

19

15. Aims for scientific improvements What are the aims of your IP / NoE as for scientific knowledge improvement? Please indicate

what has been the MOST, SECOND MOST and the THIRD MOST important aim.

15.1. Taking stock of existing knowledge and making it available for participants of the NoE / IP (and possibly for the whole research community)

15.2. Adding specialised subject knowledge (e.g. expertise in a certain data analysis method) to given research design

15.3. Adding disciplinary or geographical perspective to a research topic 15.4. Shaping research agendas on white spots 15.5. Developing new venues for research 15.6. Enhance EU policy relevance of research results 15.7. Develop foresight of emerging issues/problems to be addressed (also) through

research

First most important

8

6 6

5

4 4

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

15.5. 15.2. 15.1. 15.3. 15.4. 15.6. 15.7.

First most important

NoE IP 15.1. 5 1 15.2. 0 7 15.3. 2 3 15.4. 1 4 15.5. 2 7 15.6. 0 5 15.7. 0 3

20


15

14

10 10

9 9

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

15.5. 15.3. 15.6. 15.7. 15.2. 15.1. 15.4.


NoE IP 15.1. 6 3 15.2. 1 9 15.3. 4 10 15.4. 3 5 15.5. 5 11 15.6. 1 10 15.7. 2 9


19

18

17

15

12 12

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

15.3. 15.5. 15.6. 15.7. 15.2. 15.1. 15.4.


NoE IP 15.1. 6 6 15.2. 2 11 15.3. 6 13 15.4. 3 9 15.5. 5 14 15.6. 5 13 15.7. 5 11

21

16. Dimensions of research integration - Cognitive factors In a simplified concept of integration, how important have the following dimensions of

integration been for your IP / NoE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT concerning COGNITIVE factors? 1=not important at all, 4=very important

12

13

12

16

9

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

16.1. 16.2. 16.3.

ImportantVery important

16.1. Bringing together different disciplines 16.2. Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions 16.3. Bringing together different epistemological / ontological / methodological

approaches

NoE Important Very important 16.1. 2 8 16.2. 5 4 16.3. 4 4

IP Important Very

important 16.1. 10 8 16.2. 8 5 16.3. 8 8

22

17. Dimensions of research integration - Social factors In a simplified concept of integration, how important have the following dimensions of

integration been for your IP / NoE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT concerning SOCIAL factors? 1=not important at all, 4=very important

13

6

13

10

1413

98

12

20

3

7

10

15

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

17.1. 17.2. 17.3. 17.4. 17.5. 17.6. 17.7. 17.8.


17.1. Broadening the number of interactions between persons / labs 17.2. Deepening the number of interactions between persons / labs 17.3. Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions 17.4. Deepening inter-organisational interactions 17.5. Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area 17.6. Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks 17.7. Sharing infrastructure 17.8. Involvement of non-academic partners

NoE Important Very important

17.1. 5 5 17.2. 3 8 17.3. 5 2 17.4. 3 5 17.5. 5 3 17.6. 2 9 17.7. 6 0 17.8. 4 0

IP Important Very important

17.1. 8 7 17.2. 3 12 17.3. 8 1 17.4. 7 2 17.5. 9 7 17.6. 11 6 17.7. 3 1 17.8. 4 3

23

The overall goals for the IP /NoE

19.1.Have the goals changed significantly over time?

13%

3097%

YesNo

24

SECTION 2: DECISION-MAKING AND PROCEDURES APPLIED

Research topic and allocation of resources • 21.1. According to which criteria are the research topics of your NoE/IP defined and

chosen?

1239%

1651%

310%

Policy relevance as defined in the call for proposalScientific relevance for the academic communityInternal consistency for the IP / NoE

NoE IP Policy relevance 5 7 Scientific relevance 5 12 Internal consistency 1 2

21.2. Which mechanisms have been used to allocate money across the NoE / IP?

(multiple answers possible)

2339%

1221%

916%

1424%

Inscribed in the successive joint programme ofactivities (NoE) / implementation plan (IP) Through consensus building within the work-packages Bottom up consensus building (answeringincentives or calls)By pro-active decisions from the executive body(top down)

25

22. Promoting integration Which mechanisms have been used in your NoE / IP in order to attain integration?

11

13

6

11

0

7

12

7

4

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

22.1. 22.2. 22.3. 22.4. 22.5.

FrequentlyPreferentially

22.1. Bottom-up initiative coming from participants when and where a demand for integration emerges

22.2. Continuous synthesis achieved through thematic cross-cutting horizontal

activities that bring together people and knowledge 22.3. Progressive and systematic (pyramidal) aggregation of the results over the years

according to a master plan

22.4. Incentive organised by the governance body (bodies) to foster integration processes (top down incentives)

22.5. Other

NoE Frequently Preferentially 22.1. 6 4 22.2. 4 3 22.3. 0 1 22.4. 6 0 22.5. 0 1

IP Frequently Preferentially

22.1. 6 3 22.2. 9 10 22.3. 7 6 22.4. 6 4 22.5. 0 1

26

SECTION 3: ORGANISATION AND LEADERSHIP

The excecutive, roles and organisation of research

25.1.How is the executive body of your NoE / IP organised?

2558%

614%

1228%

The members have been designated before thestart of the NoE / IP The members of this body have been elected bythe participants at the project startThe composition of this body has been open tochange

NoE IP designated before start 8 18 elected by start 3 3 open to change 5 7

25.2.If yes, has it changed?

Yes: 13 (50%), NoE: 6, IP: 7 No: 13 (50%), NoE: 3, IP: 11

27

25.3. How are research activities structured in your project?

1858%

929%

413%

Stable number of clusters / working groups withpre-defined research questions, teams andthematic focus Clusters / working groups with evolving researchquestions, teams and thematic focus

Ad-hoc combination of expertise depending onquestions to be addressed and activities to beconducted

NoE IP predefined research questions 3 16 evolving research questions 5 4 Ad-hoc combination 3 1

28

26. How important have the following functions been for the operation of your NoE / IP

0 0 0

42

02

11

6 11

12

1123

20

17

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

26.1. 26.2. 26.3. 26.4.

Very importantImportantSomewhat importantNot important

26.1. Having a well functioning meso-level (such as cluster, working group) of scientific coordination

26.2. Having good activity leaders (micro level) 26.3. Having good administrative and financial management support 26.4. Having a good technical infrastructure

NoE Very important Important Somewhat important Not important 26.1. 8 1 2 0 26.2. 9 2 0 0 26.3. 6 3 2 0 26.4. 2 5 3 1

IP Very important Important Somewhat important Not important 26.1. 15 6 0 0 26.2. 12 9 0 0 26.3. 12 9 0 0 26.4. 3 7 8 3

29

SECTION 4: APPROPRIATE FORMS AND MODES OF COMMUNICATION

• 27.1. Do you differentiate between external and internal communication?

Yes: 28 (90,3%), NoE: 11, IP: 18 No: 3 (9,7%), NoE: 0, IP: 3

28. How important have the following tools been for your communication and exchange

of information?

10

7

7

2

8

9

14

13

18

22

3

4

6

2

14

8

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

28.1.

28.2.

28.3.

28.4.

28.5.

28.6.

28.7.

28.8.


28.1. Mailing lists for all participants of NoE / IP 28.2. Targeted E-mailing (e.g. for work-package leaders, clusters, issue specific etc.)

28.3. Internal newsletter for the NoE / IP

28.4. Discussion fora on the project website

28.5. External newsletter

28.6. Policy brief

28.7. External dissemination activities towards an academic public

28.8. External dissemination activities towards policy makers, civil society

organisations and business associations

30

28.1. Mailing lists NoE IP

Not important 6 1 somewhat important 3 Important 5 5 Very important 12

28.2. Targeted E-mailing NoE IP

Not important somewhat important 2 Important 2 6 Very important 7 15

28.3. Internal newsletter NoE IP

Not important 1 12 somewhat important 5 3 Important 3 4 Very important 2 2

28.4. Discussion fora on website NoE IP

Not important 5 11 somewhat important 4 3 Important 1 1 Very important 6

28.5. External newsletter NoE IP


28.6. Policy brief NoE IP


28.7. External dissemination towards academics NoE IP

Not important 1 somewhat important 1 Important 5 9

31

Very important 5 10 28.8. External dissemination towards policy makers,

etc. NoE IP

Not important 1 somewhat important 3 5 Important 4 9 Very important 3 6

28.9. Other NoE IP

Not important 3 somewhat important Important 1 5 Very important 1 1

29. If 'other' please specify

Other: • Intranet • Workshops every 6 months, skype / telephone conference • Virtual meetings and workspace for internal communication • Informal and personal interaction • SharePoint site as an internal management tool • Training for PhD students • Our NoE has particularly strong relations with a series of sister-mother Networks.

30. How satisfied are you with your communication strategy within your IP / NoE?

(N=31)

516%

2168%

516%

Partly satisfiedSatisfiedVery satisfied

32

NoE IP Partly satisfied 3 2 Satisfied 8 13 Very satisfied 0 6

31. Communication obstacles

• 31.1. Which of the following factors represent an obstacle to an effective internal

communication and information strategy in your IP / NoE?

4

5

5

6

9

10

11

16

21

0 5 10 15 20 25

Factor 2

Factor 4

Factor 9

Factor 7

Factor 5

Factor 3

Factor 6

Factor 1

Factor 8

Frequency Projects (N=31)

Frequency

Factor 8: Time pressure due to tight deadlines

Factor 1: Size of the IP / NoE (i.e. number of participants involved)

Factor 6: Epistemological and ontological differences

Factor 3: Heterogeneity of research interest

Factor 5: Intercultural barriers (i.e. different worldviews, behaviours and attitude in the IP / NoE can induce misunderstanding and tensions)

Factor 7: Heterogeneity of institutional backgrounds

Factor 9: Other

33

Factor 4: Language problems (i.e. unequal foreign language proficiency of the participants)

Factor 2: Geographical spread


NoE IP Total Size 5 12 17 Geographical spread 2 2 4 Heterogeneity of research interests 3 7 10 Language problems 1 4 5 Intercultural barriers 5 4 9 Epistemological differences 1 10 11 Heterogeneity of institutional backgrounds 2 4 6 Time pressure to tight deadlines 6 15 21 Other 3 2 5

SECTION 5: INCENTIVES FOR AND OBSTACLES TO COOPERATION

33. How do the following features affect concrete cooperation in your IP / NoE? -3 strongly negative, 0=no relevance + 3 strongly positive

1,65-0,4226Reporting duties

1,65-0,2525The regulations to use the money

1,810,1316Institutional diversity1,56021First time cooperation 1,660,3821

Co-funding and support of partner institutions

1,461,1324Degree of academic heterogeneity 1,051,4122

Management and involvement of the Commission

1,491,1725Thematic heterogeneity 1,521,2722The obligation to stick to the content 1,381,329Disciplinary heterogeneity1,441,4225Geographical diversity / breadth

-3-2-1123Standdevi.Mean

MedianNumber

of valid cases

Strongly positive Strongly negative

34

34. Critical mass

34.1 All in all do you think that your IP/NoE had the ‘critical mass’ needed to reach your

objectives?

Yes: 30 (96,8%), NoE: 10. IP: 21 No: 1 (3,2%). NoE: 1

35. Incentives Which kind of incentives (material and non material ones) have you used in order to keep

participants mobilised and to facilitate cooperation and exchange?

16

8

11

11

8

12

4

7

9

12

14

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

35.6.

35.5.

35.4.

35.2.

35.1.

35.3.

Ince

ntiv

es

Number of projects

Widely usedTo some degree

35.1. Allocation of material resources (money or human resources) 35.2. Opportunities like publication, training 35.3. Developing group feeling / creating strong external image 35.4. Demonstrating the importance and usefulness of NoE / IP for research 35.5. Appealing to sense of duty 35.6. Developing events and methods for effective interaction between academic and

non-academic partners

35

NoE Widely used To some degree

35.1. 8 2 35.2. 5 4 35.3. 3 5 35.4. 1 5 35.5. 2 2 35.6. 1 6

IP Widely used To some degree35.1. 6 7 35.2. 8 7 35.3. 11 7 35.4. 8 7 35.5. 5 6 35.6. 3 10

36. Is there any willingness and are steps being taken as to the following forms of sustainability?

No Yes WillingnessConcrete

steps Maintain by and large the whole NoE / IP 43,8% 56,2% 57,1% 42,9% Maintain certain activities 9,4% 90,6% 66,7% 33,3% Maintain selected institutional relationships 18,8% 81,2% 66,7% 33,3% Maintain newly defined research lines 31,2% 68,8% 72,0% 28,0%

NoE No Yes Willingness Concrete steps

Maintain by and large the whole NoE / IP 4 7 5 4

Maintain certain activities 0 11 8 8

Maintain selected institutional relationships 3 8 5 7

Maintain newly defined research lines 7 4 2 4

36

IP No Yes Willingness Concrete steps

Maintain by and large the whole NoE / IP 10 10 6 5

Maintain certain activities 3 17 15 4

Maintain selected institutional relationships 3 17 16 4

Maintain newly defined research lines 3 17 15 3

37

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

37.1.: is integration explicitly stated in Annex 1 to the contract with the Commission as one of your IP/NoE objectives?

Yes: 24 (77,4%) No: 7 (22,6%)

37.2.: Have you developed any instruments (e.g. quantitative or qualitative indicators) in

order to monitor integration? Yes: 19 (61,3%) No: 12 (38,7%)

37.3: If ‘yes’ please describe (What did you measure and how?) First analysis: two main kinds of indicators developed:

• Quantitative (statistics): questionnaire / contacts / web-based / performance • Qualitative: methodological coherence / monitoring

Answers of participants:

• Statistics • statistical network analysis • We try to measure the contact between partners, and we measure the activity on our

web-communication system. • Qualitative indicators mostly • Each stage of empirical research done by 13 local teams is followed by a synthesis

research, analysing the results; the results of this synthesis research is supposed to serve as a basis for assessing existing attitudes and policies and making recommendations to the policy-makers at all levels (from local to the pean).

• Number of partners in work-packages, number of contacts between participants, number of relocations

• In the form of thematic and methodological coherence of the delivered texts • We do not measure the results of Integration but we have design activities to integrate

the ongoing results. - exploration of existing capacities and coordination - consolidation and

cohesion - communication EXEMPLES: - Number of researchers and students from new member countries participating to the summer school - Number of publications co-authored by researchers from new member countries and researchers from “old” member states - Number of collaborations between members of the consortium on activities beyond the project (for example : conferences, publications, etc. associating at least two partners). - Number of weblinks from other research networks or international organisations made with our website. - Publications co-authored by partners with different disciplinary backgrounds. Numbers of research visits. Research projects done across a sub-set of partners and (thus) countries

• Project still in early stages so answers below are preliminary... • We have created an independant 'characterisation group' in charge of developing a

conceptual framework to monitor our developments and operate an independant monitoring.

38

39

• Internal surveys, internal evaluation, Network Council and Network Management Board meetings. On-line tools making project outcomes easier to access and share (Outcomes Database, Student Corner).

• Assessement of cross partner work within sub-groups • We have a very long and complex table of Integration Indicators, for goals to be

reached in each year of our five year project. • Internal evaluation; via a questionairre among our clusters and single members we

measured among others the growth of their networks, the influence on their academic career and their contribution to the research programme designated workpackage assesses this.

• Performance indicators were determined at the start of the network. Quantitative indicators (connexions to our website, number of summer schools and participation of young researchers, number of joint seminars...). An important qualitative indicator to our integration is the number and quality of the expressions of interest received to renew our programme of activities (3 calls launched).

38./39. Overall assessment - Cognitive dimensions / Social dimensions All in all, as a very rough personal assessment, how would you as coordinator assess the developments of integration along the following dimensions? 0=not an issue 1=very weak 4: very strong

How would you as a coordinator assess the developments of integration along the following dimensions

Degree ofimportance very strong weak very

not an Valid

Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines

5

17

8

1

1 31

Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches

9

12

8

1

2 30

Bringing together/ linking different national academic traditions

7

11

8

1

5 27

Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs 18 11 3 0 0 32

Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks 17 11 2 2 0 32

Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs 17 10 5 0 0 32 Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area 10 13 6 2 1 31 Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions 8 8 6 6 4 28 Deepening inter-organisational interactions 6 8 8 5 5 27

Sharing infrastructure 2 9 8 3 10 22

NoE very strong weak very not an

Dimensions related to cognitive integration

Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines 2 6 3 0 0

Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches 3 4 3 0 1

Bringing together/ linking different national academic traditions 4 5 1 0 1

Dimensions related to social integration

Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs 8 3 0 0 0 Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks 9 2 0 0 0

40

Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs 8 1 2 0 0

Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area 4 2 3 1 1

Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions 6 3 0 1 1 Deepening inter-organisational interactions 4 3 1 1 2

Sharing infrastructure 0 7 2 1 1

IP very strong weak very not an

Dimensions related to cognitive integration

Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines 3 11 5 1 1

Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches 4 7 5 1 4

Bringing together/ linking different national 5 7 7 1 1

41

42

academic traditions

Dimensions related to social integration

Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs 10 8 3 0 0 Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks 8 9 2 2 0

Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs 9 9 3 0 0

Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area 6 11 3 1 0

Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions 2 5 6 5 3 Deepening inter-organisational interactions 2 5 7 4 3

Sharing infrastructure 2 2 6 2 9

40. Overall assessment - Achievement of goals In a very rough, general and personal assessment, please indicate how your NOE / IP has

contributed to the following goals / issues 0=has not been an issue/goal, 1=very weak improvement, 4=very strong improvement

1

1

2

1

3

3

0

2

2

2

7

1

1

2

2

4

2

3

3

4

3

7

8

4

6

7

3

6

10

4

8

11

8

14

19

15

16

13

13

12

17

15

10

8

7

6

6

5

8

7

6

5

2

5

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

40.1.

40.2.

40.3.

40.4.

40.5.

40.6.

40.7.

40.8.

40.9.

40.10.

40.11.

Goa

ls

Number of projects

has not been an issue/goalvery weak improvementweak improvementstrong improvementvery strong improvement


40.2. Adding specialised subject knowledge (e.g. expertise in a certain data analysis

method) to given research design

40.3. Adding disciplinary or geographical perspective to a research topic

40.4. Integrating trans/multidisciplinary aspects

40.5. Shaping research agendas on white spots

40.6. Developing new venues for research

40.7. Enhance EU policy relevance of research results

40.8. Develop foresight of emerging issues/problems to be addressed (also) through research

40.9. Increasing relevance for public debate –e.g. through media, involvement of civil

society organisations, etc

40.10. Contributing to the major ERA dimensions

40.11. Cost savings and more efficiency of research

43

NoE 0 (not an

issue) (1 very weak) 2 3 4 (very strong)40.1. 0 1 0 4 6 40.2. 0 1 2 8 0 40.3. 1 1 4 3 1 40.4. 0 0 2 8 1 40.5. 2 2 0 5 2 40.6. 2 1 1 4 3 40.7. 0 2 3 3 1 40.8. 1 1 2 5 2 40.9. 1 2 3 5 0 40.10. 1 2 2 3 3 40.11. 1 1 5 4 0

IP 0 (not an

issue) (1 very weak) 2 3 4 (very strong)40.1. 1 0 8 10 2 40.2. 1 0 2 11 7 40.3. 1 1 2 12 6 40.4. 1 2 5 8 5 40.5. 1 2 3 8 7 40.6. 1 1 5 9 5 40.7. 1 1 7 9 5 40.8. 2 2 2 12 3 40.9. 2 2 5 10 2 40.10. 2 1 9 7 2 40.11. 6 6 3 4 2

44

45

ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE

Submit the form How does research integration work?This survey is conducted prior to the conference, “HOW DOES RESEARCH INTEGRATION WORK?” Assessing the work and impact of new instruments in the field of social sciences and humanitieson Tuesday, 17 June 2008, Brussels, DG-Research. The survey aims at investigating under which conditions research integration in large research projects works, or fails. This electronicquestionnaire will be will be sent to a number of large EU-funded projects.

The answers in this form are not anonymous. Questions marked with * are mandatory. You must complete and submit this form within 120 minutes. Otherwise the form will be reset and your answers will be lost.

Submit form Cancel

1. General information

1.1. Name of the IP / NoE *

1.2. Kind of instrument * Network of Excellence Integrated project

1.3. Duration *

Choose...Choose...1.4. If 'Other' please specify

1.5. Number of partner institutions *

Choose...Choose...1.6. Number of individuals involved *

Choose...Choose...1.7. Number of countries involved *

Choose...Choose...1.8. Your name and function in the IP / NoE *

1.9. Abstract: as published in Cordis *(to be entered by convenors)

2. SECTION 1: CONSORTIUM COMPOSITION AND RATIONALS BEHIND THE IP / NOE

3. Choice of partner institutionsWhich criteria guided your choice of partner organizations when putting together the consortium? Please indicate what has been the MOST, SECOND MOST and the THIRD MOST importantcriteria (NOTE: Not more than three criteria should be marked.) Most important Second most important Third most important

3.1. Reputation

3.2. Size

3.3. Geographical location

3.4. Coverage of scientific expertise

3.5. Already existing cooperation/s

3.6. Other


4.1. Other:

5. Choice of individual participantsWhich criteria did you apply to select individual participants? Please indicate what has been the MOST, SECOND MOST and the THIRD MOST important criteria. (NOTE: Not more than threecriteria should be marked.) Most important Second most important Third most important

5.1. Academic excellence

5.2. Expertise in relevant research topics

5.3. National affiliation

5.4. Organisational affiliation (university, research institute, think tank…)

5.5. Disciplinary affiliation

5.6. Language proficiencies

5.7. Other


6.1. Other:

7. Level of involvement

7.1. Which level of involvement really matters for the goals of your IP / NoE? * Legal entity (like universities) Research group / lab Individual researchers

8. Participant motivation - Expansion of own research capacityHow important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE - With regards to: Expansion of own research capacity Very weak Weak Strong Very strong

8.1. Need for complementary knowledge and expertise

8.2. Access to equipment and jointly developed infrastructure

8.3. Availability of funding (for research, research integration, training etc)

8.4. Continuation of previous cooperation

9. Participant motivation - Improving available scientific knowledgeHow important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE - With regards to: Improving available scientific knowledge

Very weak Weak Strong Very strong9.1. Overcoming research fragmentation

9.2. Conducting focused research in an appropriate way

10. Participant motivation - Enhancing visibility and prestigeHow important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE with regards to: Enhancing visibility and prestige

Very weak Weak Strong Very strong10.1. Access to academic excellence

10.2. Cannot afford being absent of large research projects

10.3. Enhance visibility as compared to research conducted outside Europe

11. Participant motivation - Scientific Community buildingHow important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE with regards to: Scientific Community building

Very weak Weak Strong Very strong11.1. Access to other communities

11.2. Building a transnational community

11.3. Establishing own research community in home country

11.4. Making international cooperation easier and more effective

12. Participant motivation - EfficiencyHow important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE with regards to: Efficiency Very weak Weak Strong Very strong

12.1. Realising cost savings through synergy and/or shared infrastructure

13. Participant motivation - Strengthening EU policies and building the ERAHow important were – on average – the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE with regards to: Strengthening EU policies and building the ERA Very weak Weak Strong Very strong

13.1. Exploitation of results for EU policy making

13.2. Participation to policy debates

13.3. Building the ERA

14. Comments concerning participant motivation

14.1. Comments

15. Aims for scientific improvementsWhat are the aims of your IP / NoE as for scientific knowledge improvement? Please indicate what has been the MOST, SECOND MOST and the THIRD MOST important aim. (NOTE: Not morethan three criteria should be marked.) Most

important

15.1. Taking stock of existing knowledge and making it available for participants of the NoE / IP (and possibly for thewhole research community)15.2. Adding specialised subject knowledge (e.g. expertise in a certain data analysis method) to given research design

15.3. Adding disciplinary or geographical perspective to a research topic

15.4. Shaping research agendas on white spots

15.5. Developing new venues for research

15.6. Enhance EU policy relevance of research results

15.7. Develop foresight of emerging issues/problems to be addressed (also) through research

16. Dimensions of research integration - Cognitive factorsIn a simplified concept of integration, how important have the following dimensions of integration been for your IP / NoE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT concerning COGNITIVEfactors? 1=not important at all, 4=very important 1 2 3 4

16.1. Bringing together different disciplines *

16.2. Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions *16.3. Bringing together different epistemological / ontological / methodological approaches *

17. Dimensions of research integration - Social factorsIn a simplified concept of integration, how important have the following dimensions of integration been for your IP / NoE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT concerning SOCIAL factors?1=not important at all, 4=very important

1 2 3 4

17.1. Broadening the number of interactions between persons / labs *

17.2. Deepening the number of interactions between persons / labs *17.3. Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions *

17.4. Deepening inter-organisational interactions *17.5. Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area *

17.6. Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks *

17.7. Sharing infrastructure *17.8. Involvement of non-academic partners *

18. Comments on cognitive and social factors

18.1. Comments

19. The overall goals for the IP /NoE

19.1. Have the goals changed significantly over time? * Yes No

19.2. If 'yes', please specify

20. SECTION 2: DECISION-MAKING AND PROCEDURES APPLIED

21. Research topic and allocation of resources

21.1. According to which criteria are the research topics of your NoE/IP defined and chosen? *Select the one option which best fits your situation

Policy relevance as defined in the call for proposal Scientific relevance for the academic community Internal consistency for the IP / NoE

21.2. Which mechanisms have been used to allocate money across the NoE / IP? *(multiple answers possible)

Inscribed in the successive joint programme of activities (NoE) / implementation plan (IP) Through consensus building within the work-packages Bottom up consensus building (answering incentives or calls) By pro-active decisions from the executive body (top down)

22. Promoting integrationWhich mechanisms have been used in your NoE / IP in order to attain integration? Not

appliedUsed

partially

22.1. Bottom-up initiative coming from participants when and where a demand for integration emerges *22.2. Continuous synthesis achieved through thematic cross-cutting horizontal activities that bring together peopleand knowledge *22.3. Progressive and systematic (pyramidal) aggregation of the results over the years according to a master plan *22.4. Incentive organised by the governance body (bodies) to foster integration processes (top down incentives) *22.5. Other


23.1. Other:

24. SECTION 3: ORGANISATION AND LEADERHIP

25. The excecutive, roles and organisation of research

25.1. How is the executive body of your NoE / IP organised? * The members have been designated before the start of the NoE / IP The members of this body have been elected by the participants at the project start The composition of this body has been open to change

25.2. If yes, has it changed? Yes No

25.3. How are research activities structured in your project? * Stable number of clusters / working groups with pre-defined research questions, teams and thematic focus Clusters / working groups with evolving research questions, teams and thematic focus Ad-hoc combination of expertise depending on questions to be addressed and activities to be conducted

26. How important have the following functions been for the operation of your NoE / IP Not important Somewhat important

26.1. Having a well functioning meso-level (such as cluster, working group) of scientific coordination *26.2. Having good activity leaders (micro level) *

26.3. Having good administrative and financial management support *26.4. Having a good technical infrastructure *

27. SECTION 4: APPROPRIATE FORMS AND MODES OF COMMUNICATION

27.1. Do you differentiate between external and internal communication? * Yes No

28. How important have the following tools been for your communication and exchange of information? Not important Somewhat important

28.1. Mailing lists for all participants of NoE / IP *28.2. Targeted E-mailing (e.g. for work-package leaders, clusters, issue specific etc.) *

28.3. Internal newsletter for the NoE / IP *28.4. Discussion fora on the project website

28.5. External newsletter

28.6. Policy brief

28.7. External dissemination activities towards an academic public

28.8. External dissemination activities towards policy makers, civil society organisations and business associations

28.9. Other


29.1. Other:

30. How satisfied are you with your communication strategy within your IP / NoE? Not satisfied at all Partly satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

30.1. How satisfied are you with your communication strategy within your IP / NoE? *


31.1. Which of the following factors represent an obstacle to an effective internal communication and information strategy in your IP / NoE? Size of the IP / NoE (i.e. number of participants involved) Geographical spread Heterogeneity of research interests Language problems (i.e. unequal foreign language proficiency of the participants) Intercultural barriers (i.e. different worldviews, behaviours and attitude in the IP / NoE can induce misunderstanding and tensions) Epistemological and ontological differences Heterogeneity of institutional backgrounds Time pressure due to tight deadlines Other

31.2. If 'Other' please specify

32. SECTION 5: INCENTIVES FOR AND OBSTACLES TO COOPERATION

33. How do the following features affect concrete cooperation in your IP / NoE?-3 strongly negative, 0=no relevance + 3 strongly positive

33.1. Thematic heterogeneity (the breadth of topics and questions addressed by the group) *

33.2. Disciplinary heterogeneity (the variety of academic disciplines or sub-disciplines represented in the group) *33.3. Institutional diversity (number and diversity of different institutions represented, their relative weight in the group composition) *33.4. First time cooperation (characterized by the absence of previous co-operation between most of the RG participant as well as group openness tonew comers after it has been set up) *33.5. Degree of academic heterogeneity (when there are scholars with very different levels of seniority at the “working level” of IP / NoE)

33.6. Geographical diversity / breadth *

33.7. Reporting duties (too short termed) to the Commission *33.8. The regulations to use the money *

33.9. The obligation to stick to the content to the joint programme of activities (NoE) / implementation plan (IP) *33.10. Co-funding and support of partner institutions *

33.11. Management and involvement of the Commission (DG Research) *

34. Critical mass

34.1. 5.2 All in all do you think that your IP/NoE had the ‘critical mass’ needed to reach your objectives? * Yes No

34.2. Comments

35. IncentivesWhich kind of incentives (material and non material ones) have you used in order to keep participants mobilised and to facilitate cooperation and exchange?

Not used A few times To some degree

35.1. Allocation of material resources (money or human resources) *

35.2. Opportunities like publication, training *35.3. Developing group feeling / creating strong external image *

35.4. Demonstrating the importance and usefulness of NoE / IP for research *35.5. Appealing to sense of duty *

35.6. Developing events and methods for effective interaction between academic and non-academic partners *

36. Is there any willingness and are steps being taken as to the following forms of sustainability?

36.1. Maintain by and large the whole NoE / IP * Yes No

36.2. If 'yes': Willingness/Intention Concrete steps

36.3. If 'concrete steps' please specify

36.4. Maintain certain activities * Yes No


36.6. If 'concrete steps' please list activities and specify

36.7. Maintain selected institutional relationships * Yes No



36.10. Maintain newly defined research lines * Yes No



37. Additional section: ASSESSING INTEGRATION AND IMPACTS

37.1. Is integration explicitly stated in Annex 1 to the contract with the Commission as one of your IP / NoE objectives? * Yes No

37.2. Have you developed any instruments (e.g. quantitative or qualitative indicators) in order to monitor integration? * Yes No

37.3. If 'yes', please describe (What did you measure and how?)

38. Overall assessment - Cognitive dimensionsAll in all, as a very rough personal assessment, how would you as coordinator assess the developments of integration along the following COGNITIVE dimensions? 0=not an issue 1=veryweak 4: very strong

0 1 2 3 4

38.1. Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines *38.2. Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions *

38.3. Bringing together – linking different epistemological / ontological / methodological approaches *

39. Overall assessment - Social dimensionsAll in all, as a very rough personal assessment, how would you as coordinator assess the developments of integration along the following SOCIAL dimensions? 0=not an issue 1=very weak4: very strong 0 1 2 3 4

39.1. Broadening the number of interactions between persons / labs *

39.2. Deepening the number of interactions between persons / labs *39.3. Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions *

39.4. Deepening inter-organisational interactions *39.5. Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area *

39.6. Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks *39.7. Sharing infrastructure *

40. Overall assessment - Achievement of goalsIn a very rough, general and personal assessment, please indicate how your NOE / IP has contributed to the following goals / issues 0=has not been an issue/goal, 1=very weakimprovement, 4=very strong improvement


40.2. Adding specialised subject knowledge (e.g. expertise in a certain data analysis method) to given research design *40.3. Adding disciplinary or geographical perspective to a research topic *

40.4. Integrating trans/multidisciplinary aspects *

40.5. Shaping research agendas on white spots *40.6. Developing new venues for research *

40.7. Enhance EU policy relevance of research results *40.8. Develop foresight of emerging issues/problems to be addressed (also) through research *

40.9. Increasing relevance for public debate –e.g. through media, involvement of civil society organisations, etc. *40.10. Contributing to the major ERA dimensions *

40.11. Cost savings and more efficiency of research *

41. For your own record, we advice you to print this form before submitting.

Submit form Cancel

“How does research integration work?” RESULTS OF THE ... Conf… · 4 • “Consortium...

Documents

Transcript of “How does research integration work?” RESULTS OF THE ... Conf… · 4 • “Consortium...