EURREP PROJECT: Fertility, reproduction and population change in 21st

Century Europe

European Research Council and the Czech Republic Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities workshop, Prague, 14 November 2014

Tomáš SobotkaWittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital / Vienna

Institute of Demography (Austrian Academy of Sciences)

My CV in a nutshell

Education

•BA+ MA: Demography & Social Demography, Charles University, Prague

•PhD: University of Groningen (NL), PhD thesis 2004

Employment

•Vienna Institute of Demography, Austrian Academy of Sciences (2004+)

Selected career steps

•Repeated research stays at MPI for Demographic Research (Rostock)

•Managing editor, Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2005-10

•Research group leader (Comparative European Demography), 2013+

•ERC grant awarded 2011

•2010+: developing open-access research databases pertaining to fertility

My research interests

Mostly demography, but also an intersection with sociology, medical research / biodemography, economics

•Low fertility and family change, European and global perspective

•Shift of parenthood to advanced reproductive ages and its consequences

•Fertility measurement

•Population change in Central and Eastern Europe

•Evolution of fertility intentions and ideals

•Demographic analysis of assisted reproduction

•Childlessness

Publication record

•>2000 cites in Google Scholar (> 500 at the time of the ERC proposal)

•Papers in leading demographic journals, also medical and sociological journals

My ERC project

EURREP project: brief introduction

Timeline

•Submission November 2010, Interview in Brussels April 2011

•Awarded July 2011

•Start February 2012; planned completion January 2017

•Mid-term report September 2014

Project & team info, publications etc: www.eurrep.org

Budget: 1.27 mill. EUR

Key research areas

Theme 1: Advancing fertility research in contemporary Europe

Theme 2: Aggregate patterns and developments of fertility intentions

Theme 3: Fertility, migration and population change

Theme 4: Expanding and sustaining new data infrastructure

EURREP project: brief introduction (2)

Outreach•Key part of the project, although not the key ERC criterion

•Communication of the main results & outcomes

•Diverse target audience: other researchers, policy-makers, journalists, interested public

Main communication channels

•Project website, including news, publications and selected presentations

•Scientific publications (almost all open access, available upon request)

•EURREP Research Brief: newsletter highlighting key research results

•Conferences, symposia, incl. those with policy-makers (UNFPA, EC…)

•European Fertility Data Sheet (2015)

•A book on European population changes and futures (2017)

•Launching of the Cohort Fertility and Education (CFE) database; development of two other research databases

Project team & team coordination

•The PI fully in charge in selecting her/his team!

•PI+5: Three team members already envisioned in the early stage, early communication

•Involvement: 3-4 years

•All hosted at the Vienna Institute of Demography, frequent contact

•Career stages: 1 PhD student, 2 postdocs, 1 senior researcher

Tomas SOBOTKA (PI)PhD, University of Groningen (NL)

Project team & team coordination

Eva BEAUJOUANPhD, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne – INED, Paris

Caroline BERGHAMMERPhD, University of Vienna

Zuzanna BRZOZOWSKAPhD student (Warsaw School of Economics)

Anna MATYSIAKPhD (Warsaw School of Economics)

Krystof ZEMANPhD (Charles University)

Selected results (1): What do men and women in Europe want?

2 kids, typically…

…ideally a boy and a girl….

www.theiiac.com

Selected results (1): Mean ideal family size in Europe, 1979-2012

Two is best: The persistence of two-child family ideals in Europe (T. Sobotka & E. Beaujouan, Population and Development Review 2014)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Mea

n id

eal f

amily

size

(MIF

S)

Maximum

75% (upper quartile)

Mean

25% (Lower quartile)

Minimum

Ireland

BulgariaUK

Finland

Selected results (2): How is labour force participation of women correlated with fertility rates?

thehrjuggler.wordpress.com

Selected results (2): How is labour force participation of women correlated with fertility rates?

A. Matysiak & T. Sobotka (in preparation)

A positive relationship between women’s employment and fertility?

OECD 2011 (Doing better for Families)

Selected results (2): How is labour force participation of women correlated with fertility rates?

Women’s labour participation at age 25-34 and period TFR in 2011, 301 European regions (mostly NUTS2)

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Southern + German-speaking Europe

Central and Eastern Europe

Western and Northern Europe

Data from Eurostat online database (2014)

Novelty, innovative character of the EURREP research

• Focus on education as a key marker of social stratification: Systematic analysis of how reproductive behaviour in Europe & other low-fertility regions stratified by level of education

• Analysing reversals in fertility and their key determinants

• Studying long-term evolution in intended family size and how is it linked to fertility behaviour

• Developing new indicators of population reproduction and fertility

• Lining micro- and macro-level analyses

• Development of new data infrastructure (open-access data available online)

Challenges

Bureaucracy

•Burden of financial reporting and bookkeeping (financial report each 18 months)

•Audits can be strict, especially when irregularities or errors discovered

•Rules can be made more complicated by the host institution

•Need for an excellent admin. staff!

Work & travel records

•Stipulated by ERC rules + rules of the host institution

•Might be unnecessarily complex (lack of trust) and at times obscure

•Travel and work: things you are not supposed to do

•Consider not working 100% on the project: leeway to do “other things” or to participate in other duties

Preparing the project application

Early stage: motivation, institutional support

• Supportive environment at the institute, especially the leadership

• The “culture” of acquiring external finances: “Natural” part of our scientific work

• Experience of the administrative staff with such projects

• Examples of colleagues who were successful in ERC grant application

• Information events & couching (including trial presentations) provided by the Austrian Research Foundation, FWF

Elaboration of the proposal

Scientific part

•Relatively fast, < 1 month

•Some help from the admin. staff (re-reading, catching some typos and inconsistencies)

•Clear ideas how different part relate to each other

•Well developed time / stages planning important!

Do not do?

•Do not try to elaborate all your ideas at once; do not promise too much!

Practicalities

•Rather clear ideas about other researchers involved and their tasks

•Budgeting: great help by the admin. staff, salaries largely determined by wage tables of AT Science Foundation. Most of the budget = wages

Key ingrediences of a successfull application (1)

The PI: scientific record, esteem factor

Very important

•In the first round of applications, his/her past scientific record key

•Ability to publish in the leading journals in the field; also as a first or a solo author

•Relevance/citations of his publications

Important

•Ability to collaborate with international teams & colleagues

•Project & team management: Ability to acquire research grants (also smaller), coordinate research and research activities

•Important conferences, keynote lectures, invited presentations

Key ingrediences of a successfull application (2)

Novelty, innovation

•Make sure the proposal highlights innovative aspects: innovation & originality become important especially in the 2nd round

•But the goals should also be achievable and realistic within a given budget & time framework

•Try to aim for a multidisciplinary proposal

PI

•The excellent scientific record must be apparent from the proposal

•Don’t be shy highlighting your best achievements, most-cited papers...

•Highlight awards, collaborations & anything that shows your potential

Institutional support (pledge of the host institution) important

Budget

•Be prepared for some cuts if the proposal is approved

Contingency plan, back up strategies

Getting the proposal approved, getting started

After the first round: The inteview in Brussels

Depending on the field, ca. 20% of submitted proposals are selected

Oral interview at ERC headquarters

•Area-specific panel members

•Most not experts in your field!

•Short time for a presentation (12 min)

•Focus: proposal, novelty. Do not spend too much time on CV and technicalities

•Show enthusiasm about your topic

Useful links

http://paparazzi-ethnography.com/2012/10/24/erc-brussels/

http://www.sfi.ie/international/the-european-research-council-introduction/tips-for-a-successful-interview.html

Photo:http://theconversation.com/european-research-council-tours-australia-18894

Grant awarded: What comes next?

“Invitation to negotiate”

•Assembling the research team: your choice!

•Last revisions in budget, time planning, project proposals

•Changes need to be explained and approved

•Additional queries from ERC, clarifying questions etc.

•Often you might negotiate about your salary, work conditions, technical support etc. with the host institution

•Also the use of “overheads” funds or a part of them might be negotiable, depending on the institution’s rules

Getting started...getting the work done

Effective administrative support is a part of the success

•Help with finances, financial reporting (18 M)

•Financial planning

•Rules pertaining to project documentation, time and travel reporting

•May help with the communication with the ERC coordinators

Bringing the team together

Setting up the website (press release…)

Project reporting: relatively light, dedicated server. Mid-term report.

Developing your career

Conclusions: Main advantages & drawbacks

Summing up: what‘s good

• You are in charge: your ideas, your project

• Transferable

• You decide about the team

• Research independence: The decision not influenced by your titles, function… just merits: Bypassing entrenched rigidities & hierarchy at the host institution

• The grant & the independence that comes with it can kick-start your career

• Negotiating power with your host: ERC grant is sizeable & prestigious: in many countries & institutions, you can negotiate your (and your team’s) salary; also equipment support, rooms etc…

• Reasonably flexible when changes or adjustments needed

• Focus on research & publishing it: No need for extensive reports, deliverables like in large FP7 / HORIZON projects…

Summing up: the obstacles & bottlenecks

Bureaucratic burden

•It’s great to have good, experienced and language-skilled admin. support. Also national contact points / research coordinating agencies helpful

•Time, travel & financial reporting (the burden depends in part on the host institution and on whether clear & consistent rules are in place )

Time use, project planning

•Difficult to participate in the events of your institution when working 100% on ERC grant

tomas.sobotka@oeaw.ac.at

Research presented here was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement n° 284238 (EURREP).

EURREP website: www.eurrep.org