Transcript The most important barriers - WBC

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 gender
Respondents by type of institution
Respondents by reserarch area
Types of cooperative projects
Types of projects
WBC&T
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).
MS
76%
64%
27%
14%
8%
Projects funded by the
FPs
9%
Bilateral projects with
WBC&T
Bilateral projects with
MS
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
Number of bilateral projects of
WBC&T with MS
Number of bilateral projects
among WBC&T
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Slovenia
Austria
Italy
France
The most intensive intra-regional
bilateral cooperation among WBC&T is
with Croatia, Serbia and Turkey
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
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
14% of respondents from MS and 31% from WBC&T
have not participated in the international collaborative
research projects in the last 10 years
No positive
answers to any of
the 7 components
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
No. of the obstacles to mobility
809 respondents : problems
related to mobility have been
noticed 189 times (possibility:
one respondent – several times)
•WBC&T: 74%
•MS: 26%
87
22
22
17
9
8
8
7
5
3
1
Percentage of noticed obstacles
to mobility by countries
62
47
45
41
35
35
20
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
Above
100
50-100
40-50
20-40
10-20
Under 10
Germany, Italy, UK
Spain, France, the Netherlands
Belgium, Slovenia, Austria, Croatia
and Greece
Serbia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Poland, Sweden Czech R.
WBC&T, Finland, Portugal
Iceland, Lithuania, Estonia
Motives for participation in FP
Motives for participation in FP
Building up new research partnerships and networks
4.76
Access to new sources of knowledge and technology
4.75
4.55
Professional challenge
Extra funds for research equipment, activities and…
4.51
4.44
Publishing new scientific papers
Funding my regular research activities
4.35
Enable mobility of PhD students
4.32
Enable my own international mobility
4.21
Using equipment I do not have in my country
4.17
Meeting criteria for promotion to higher grades
Government financial incentives for international…
Funds
4.22
Incentive framework provided by the special calls
Professional prestige in the research community
Science
driven
motives
4.02
3.95
3.83
Funds for extra salary (honorarium)
3.73
Producing new patents/licenses or commercial results
3.68
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Constant changes of the rules and
procedures in project submission
and monitoring;
Payment delays;
Changes in projects objectives and
deliverables;
Duration of project evaluation;
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
Lack of a acountry’s lobbying
skills with the EU
administration
Lack of industrial partners;
Low scientific image of a
country
Difficulties in mobility of
researchers
Parochialism (low international
openness of a country to
international collaboration
• Negotiation with the EC is recognised as
very important for awarding project grants
• Strengthening of the national innovation
system (science-industry cooperation) ???
• There is a high awareness of low scientific
reputation especially in B&H, Montenegro,
FYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania
• Regulations and procedures for mobility
should be more flexible
• Medium important barrier – but call for
incentive measures at the national level for
more intensive international cooperation
“Medium important” barriers
SOCIO-CULTURAL AND
POLITICAL BARRIERS
“EU scientific superiority”
Political instability
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
•
•
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” barriers
INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF
RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS
•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 !
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
“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
ADMINISTRATIVE AND
BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS
“Project management“ barriers
„EU bureaucratic barriers“
NATIONAL CAPACITY
BARRIERS
SOCIO-CULTURAL AND
POLITICAL BARRIERS
INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY OF
RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS
Scientific excellence
Personal barriers
Not barriers
“EU scientific superiority”
Political instability
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
•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 •Participation in FP is valorised only indirectly, by
into account for individual
the number of scientific papers, studies,
researcher’s promotion into higher participation in conferences, etc.;
scientific grades
•It is possible to gain a high scientific position
without any or very modest international
cooperation activities
Participation in FP should be
Participation in FP does not play any role in
standard evaluation criteria of the
institutional evaluation and funding
success and quality of research
institutions related to institutional
(block) funding
To provide financial incentives for
preparation of FP projects and for
winning the projects
Main recommendation:
National level (2)
Policy measures
Reasons behind
Provide education activities for
Project management and EU administrative
building professional and technical barriers are recognised as the most important
skills of researchers for participation
in FPs
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 •There is no comprehensive databases;
of international cooperation (FP,
bilateral, COST, EUREKA...)
•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 •EC procedures are perceived as the most
least making them more transparent, clear important barriers;
and understandable
•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
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 WBCINCO.NET project in food,
health, ICT, transport and
environment
Reasons behind
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 – Albania
0.2% of GDP - Montenegro
0.4% of GDP – Serbia
0.3% of GDP – FYR of Macedonia
0.05% of GDP - B&H
0.6% of GDP – Turkey
0.9% of GDP – Croatia
could 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: [email protected]
Telephone: + 385 1 4886 825