Barriers in research cooperation of WBC countries

Jadranka Švarc

Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Zagreb

Steering Platform Meeting on Research for

the Western Balkan Countries

May 27/28, 2009, Liblice , Czech Republic

General information

Workpackage task: 3.3 Analysis of barriers to cooperation– Task lead: Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Zagreb– Task lead partners: MHEST (WP lead), DLR, BMBF– Time of delivering: January, 2009

Overall aim: to identify barriers which inhibit researchers from the Western Balkan countries and Turkey (WBC&T) from international R&D cooperation and to provide an analytical background for policy measures

This is the first study focused on identification of the factors which hamper the cooperation of WBC&T in the:

/1/ EU Framework Programmes (FPs);(up to now: only bilateral cooperation and mobility were analysed );

/2/ bilateral projects/3/ difference in perception of barrieres between WBC&T and MS

The main hypothesis: the specific socio-economic context of WBC&T request the specific policy measures to encourage their participation in EU FP

Design of research

Data and methodology

Data collection: web-based questionnaire (809 responses: 10.49% response rate)

Type of sample: non-probability purposive sample

Methodology:

• Descriptive analysis of barriers;

• Factor analysis to identify different dimension of 58 itemised barriers grouped in the 6 main types of barrieres and for testing the hypotheses (correlation between dependent and independent variables);

• Standard statistical methods like: Likert scale, t-test for equality of means, ANOVA (the analysis of variance), methods for construction of scales, etc…

SAMPLE – number of respondents

WBC&T and MS were equally represented:

46.8% WBC&T and 53.2 % MS

Socio-demographic characteristic

Respondents by reserarch area

Respondents by type of institution

Respondents by gender

Types of cooperative projects

The dominant type of cooperation in both groups of countries are EU FP projects, 64% of all projects within WBC&T, and 76% of all projects within MS (71% of total projects).

WBC&T projects: 64% EU FP 27% bilateral with MS 8% bilateral with

WBC&T

Inter-regional cooperation is more intensive than intra-regional cooperation

Bilateral cooperation

The most intensive inter-regional bilateral cooperation between WBC&T and MS is with Slovenia followed by Austria, France and Italy (other countries are selected sporadically

The most intensive intra-regional bilateral cooperation among WBC&T is with Croatia, Serbia and Turkey

Intensity of cooperation

Measured as a composite index:

1.Component . Participation in international research projects in the last ten years (question 8);

2.Component . At least one visit or stay abroad for scientific purposes

3.Component . Participation in conferences

4.Component . Participation in research fellowship

5.Component . Participation in scholarship

6.Component . Participation in visiting professors

7.Component . Participation in temporary employment

No positive answers to any of the 7 components

14% of respondents from MS and 31% from WBC&T have not participated in the international collaborative research projects in the last 10 years

14% of respondents from MS and 31% from WBC&T have not participated in the international collaborative research projects in the last 10 years

The intensity of project cooperation of WBC&T is much smaller than MS especially in FP

The intensity of project cooperation of WBC&T is much smaller than MS especially in FP

Mobility of researchers

…is measured by the visits to foreign countries or staying abroad for research conferences, fellowships, and visiting professors’ positions

SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ABROAD IN THE LAST TEN YEARS!! !•35% of total•43% from WBC&T •27% from MS

Obstacles to mobility

809 respondents : problems related to mobility have been noticed 189 times (possibility: one respondent – several times)•WBC&T: 74%•MS: 26%

DESTINATION COUNTRIES ON THE INTER-REGIONAL LEVEL Where (all) researchers are going?

… is measured by the longest stay/visit of respondents in selected countries.

Researchers regardless the country of origin gravitate towards the three “old” and scientifically leading European countries

No. of selections

Motives for participation in FP

Science driven motives

Funds

Much more important for WBC than MS

The most important barriers:ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUREAUCRATIC barriers

“PROJECT MANAGEMENT BARRIERS”

researchers’ incapacities to manage the projects in terms of:

1. Finding appropriate call;2. Accounting and financial rules;3. Finding research partners and

building consortium;4. Co-financial obligation of institution;5. Understanding the application

procedures;6. Technical knowledge on how to

submit project (e.g. on-line);

“EU BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS”

modus operandi of EC administration which includes:

1. Constant changes of the rules and procedures in project submission and monitoring;

2. Payment delays;3. Changes in projects objectives and

deliverables;4. Duration of project evaluation;5. Long response time to technical

questions.

The essence of the problem is expressed in the barrier formulated as “A SMALL ACCEPTANCE RATE OF PROJECT PROPOSALS IN RELATION TO INVESTED EFFORTS” – which receives absolutely the highest score among all 58 itemized barriers

N.B. Experienced researchers with more intensive cooperation perceive these barriers as more important

“Very important” to “medium” important barriers NATIONAL CAPACITY BARRIERS

“Medium important” barriers SOCIO-CULTURAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERS

“EU scientific superiority”1. Underinvestment in WBC research

capacities: all agree (WBC more) that EU should heavily invests in science of WBC;

2. WBC suffer inferiority complex; “EU 27 looks down on WBC scientific potentials”- LOSS OF CRITICAL MASS FOR R&D?

3. Long period of isolation from EU integrations;

4. Cultural differences - MS are more aware of the cultural differences than WBC but they not perceive them as the obstacles to cooperation; cooperation with WBC is for them of the same importance as with MS

Political instability• mutual political antagonism;

• democratic deficits

•WBC blame themselves for their political instability and weak scientific reputation;

•WBC are more worried about socio-cultural

obstacles to cooperation than MS;

“Medium to not important” barriersINSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS

Only 4 out of 11 barrieres are perceived as “medium” important:

• Lack of time – researchers are occupied with other priorities;

• Lack of skilled accounting professionals;

• Lack of assistance in project managing;

• Lack of adequate research equipment

Mostly satisfed with:

• Strategic orientation of the institutions towards FP;

• Engagement of leadership in finding calls, partners, niches...

• Amount of competent researchers;• Overall professional and advisory

support for FP;• Financial gain for both research

teams and institution;• ICT capacities

•These barriers are not recognised as important barriers. Respondents do not complain, but they are (Surprisingly!) mainly satisfied with the assistance provided by their institutions for FP •N.B. „Project management“ and “ EU administrative” barriers are the biggest obstacles !•Research institutions’ capacities are decisive for overcoming these barriers !

“Not important” barrieres SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE and PERSONNAL BARRIERS

Scientific excellence - not recognised as barriers

• Respondents are convinced that their scientific competences and network connections are sufficient for participation in FP;

• They have prominent scientists but they are not internationally recognised

Personal barriers

• age, health and gender - are not perceived as barriers;

• language skills are indicated as a certain barrier;

• “unforeseen difficulties related to international cooperation” are indicated as a barrier (researchers from WBC are more “afraid” of FP than from MS);

Barriers: an overview

„EU bureaucratic barriers“„EU bureaucratic barriers“

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF RESEARCH ORGANISATIONSINSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS

ADMINISTRATIVE AND BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS

NATIONAL CAPACITY BARRIERS

“Project management“ barriers“Project management“ barriers

SOCIO-CULTURAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERSSOCIO-CULTURAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERS

“EU scientific superiority” “EU scientific superiority”

Political instability Political instability

Scientific excellence

Personal barriers Not barriers

Main findings and conclusions

• The pattern of barriers (types and scores) to R&D cooperation is very similar for both WBC&T and MS;

• Despite WBC&T and MS share the similar types of barriers, the same barriers present much greater difficulties to researchers from WBC&T than from MS;

• Intensity of R&D cooperation and mobility of researchers from WBC&T is significantly smaller than for researchers from MS

Conclusions:

1. Specific context of WBC&T intensifies and deepens barriers requesting specific policy measures for cooperation in FPs: TO DEVELOP A POLICY MIX AT both NATIONAL AND EU LEVEL

2. For bilateral projects there is no need for the different policy measures since no difference in type and intensity of barriers between WBC&T and MS are identified

Main recommendation: National level (1)

Policy measures Reasons behind

To provide financial incentives for preparation of FP projects and for winning the projects

•Extra funds are important for WBC&T due to the scarce financial resources,•Researchers are heavily dependent on national budget, suffer inferiority complex and need additional incentives•To break a fear that that EU funding will substitute, not complement, the national budget resources

Participation in FP should be taken into account for individual researcher’s promotion into higher scientific grades

•Participation in FP is valorised only indirectly, by the number of scientific papers, studies, participation in conferences, etc.;•It is possible to gain a high scientific position without any or very modest international cooperation activities

Participation in FP should be standard evaluation criteria of the success and quality of research institutions related to institutional (block) funding

Participation in FP does not play any role in institutional evaluation and funding

Main recommendation: National level (2)

Policy measures Reasons behind

Provide education activities for building professional and technical skills of researchers for participation in FPs

Project management and EU administrative barriers are recognised as the most important

To upgrade the capacity building of research institutions: a network of scientific managers and consultants in addition to NCP

Researchers are not aware what kind of assistance they should expect from their institutions

To improve the information system of international cooperation (FP, bilateral, COST, EUREKA...)

•There is no comprehensive databases;

•There is no easily available and retrievable data about FP;

Main recommendation: EU level (1)

Policy measures Reasons behind

Simplification of the EC procedures or at least making them more transparent, clear and understandable

•EC procedures are perceived as the most important barriers;•Perception of these barriers is becoming worse with more intensive cooperation (experienced researches complain more)

Opening of the national research programmes in MS to researchers from WBC&T

•To overcome cultural differences regarding the standards of scientific work;•Programmes for international mobility of researchers which allow foreigners to participate and lead projects financed by national resources are already existing (“brain gain” programmes)

Provide training and assistance to researchers, consultants and policy makers from WBC&T using a model of “twining projects”:

•Good results in the CARDS projects;•There are consultants experienced in EC bureaucracy who would like to work in WBC&T (e.g. retired scientists/officers) could stay for a longer period in a WBC&T country

Main recommendation: EU level (2)

Policy measures Reasons behind

Targeted regional calls should be created for WBC in research activities like Cooperation programme of FP (not only for capacities building and networking);

Good starting points are common research priorities identified within WBC-INCO.NET project in food, health, ICT, transport and environment

According to the FP7 Third Country Agreements all WBC&T are eligible for funding on the same footing as MS.This is an opportunity but also a threat.The analysis revealed that barriers are much larger in WBC than MS;Only scientific excellent researchers could apply for FP projects: do we really believe that countries which invest:0.2% of GDP – Albania0.2% of GDP - Montenegro0.4% of GDP – Serbia0.3% of GDP – FYR of Macedonia 0.05% of GDP - B&H0.6% of GDP – Turkey0.9% of GDP – Croatiacould participate on equal footing?

Insisting on scientific excellence through the same rights and conditions of participation could have a reverse impact on scientific excellence and pull WBC away from FP:MS research declare that cooperation with WBC&T is of the same relevance for their scientific careers as cooperation with MS.What are the drivers of their cooperation? Scientific excellence of WBC or special support measures?The sensitivity towards specific context of WBC calls for the positive discrimination measures;

Thank you for your attention!

Name: Jadranka Švarc

Organisation: Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar

Address: Marulićev trg 19, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

E-mai: jadranka.svarc@pilar.hr

Telephone: + 385 1 4886 825