FP7 SSH Commentary – First Results · FP7 SSH Commentary – First Results Christina Bitterberg...

FP7 SSH Commentary –First Results

Christina BitterbergDLRGermanyTel.: + 49 228 3821 711Fax: + 49 228 3821 331E-Mail: [email protected]: www.net4society.eu/public/survey

Social Sciences and Humanities researchers rate EU funding as the key to internationalisation

NET4SOCIETY. 15th December 2010

Turnout of the survey

All in all: broad representation of countries

Questionnaire:• 466 participants from 39 countries• 8,5% of participants from Third Countries

Interviews:• 100 interviews from 29 countries

(9% Third Countries)


Main conclusions

• SSH researchers welcome FP7 as a uniqueopportunity for international collaboration– this is the major incentive to participation

• The low success rate of the SSH programme– esp. in combination with the high effort of application is a major barrier for participation


What are the main reasons why you and/or your research team did apply for FP7 Calls? - up to 3 statements possible -

14

45

58

59

59

99

125

144

165

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Other

We want to contribute to the development of aEuropean Research Area

I already participated in earlier EU ResearchFramework Programmes and made good experiences

An FP7-project might improve the access to furtherresearch funding

FP7-projects provide prestige

The topic of the project required a European approach

FP7 funding was crucial to finance the project

Collaborating with international partners mightincrease the quality of research results

FP7-projects are a good opportunity for internationalnetworking

n= 279

1. Opportunityforinternational networking

2. International collaborationincreasesresearchquality

3. Funding

Participationincentives


Participation barriers

Main barriers:

1. Effort & complexity of application2. Low success rate3. Difficulties with consortium building

Only 1 in 5 researchers agreesthat the SSH success rate issufficient to safeguard participation of excellent researchers in the longterm

"Half a year of proposalpreparation for - in our

case - a chance of 1 in 27 to be funded - that isa barrier to participation."


Opinions on theevaluation process

• Survey participants were devided in their opinions on quality of evaluation process

Recommendations for improvement were however:• Feedback of ESRs should be more

detailed and clear-cut• Rules for ranking of proposals (esp. with identical

scores) need to become more transparent• Selection of evaluators should be improved esp. with

regard to very interdisciplinary proposals


SSH in FP7

• Interview partners believed that in general there is a high awareness of the relevance of FP7 as the largest SSH programme worldwide

• But they also remarked that this might differ betweendisciplines and that participation in the programme isperceived as being very complicated


Theme 8 „SSH“

Positive:…is effective in supporting international and cross-disciplinary research…is attractive for the best qualified researchers…reflects the most relevant issues of the SSH community

Critical issues:…success rate is not adequate…inclusion of humanities is not sufficient

Most researchers believe that topics should be included that are moreopenly phrased – more room for flexibility


Funding schemes

Interviews: Which FP7 funding schemesin „Cooperation“ are relevant for you?

91%

27%

23%

21%

13%

12%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CP – small or medium scale

CSA

CP – large scale

SICA

Network of Excellence

BSG – CSO

BSG – SMEs n = 94


New approach –„Societal Challenges“

• About 40% of questionnaire participants, 50% of interview partners were familiarwith new approach

• Researchers were devided in their opinions on „SocietalChallenges“ (1/3 positive, 1/3 negative, 1/3 undecided)

• Only 1 in 3 voted for more challenges, less conventional topics in future work programmes


New approach –„Societal Challenges“

• Rather positively evaluated aspects: focus on societalchallenges, multidisciplinarity

• Rather negatively evaluated aspects: size of consortia(management effort, consortium building), effort of proposal preparation, only 1 project per challenge, difficult for newcomers

"It is a big risk to put all your eggs in

one basket!"

“It is a good and suitable solution – as a partner not

as a coordinator”


SSH in other themes / programmesthan Theme 8 „SSH“

Which of the following programmes of FP7 are significant enough for you to consider them for proposal submission?

69

86

130

145

117

151

186

10

8

21

15

57

33

22

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

"Research for the benefit of SMEs" within SpecificProgramme "Capacities"

"Research Infrastructures" within Specific Programme"Capacities"

"Science in Society" within Specific Programme"Capacities"

"International Cooperation" within Specific Programme"Capacities"

Other Themes than Theme 8 "SSH" within thespecific Programme "Cooperation"

Specific Programme "Ideas" (ERC)

Specific Programme "People"/Marie Curie Actions

Significant I submitted a proposaln= 370


Integration of SSH in otherCooperation Themes

• In principle interdisciplinary projects incl. SSH withinother themes are welcomed

• But: 2 out of 3 survey participants are unsatisfied withthe integration of SSH aspects in other „Cooperation“Themes, particular difficulties: consortium building, evaluation

• integration should be improved & better communicated


„Ideas“ - ERC

• 50% of questionnaire participants rate ERC as significantenough for them to consider proposal submission:

Is the specific Programme "Ideas"/European Research Council significant enough for you to consider it for proposal submission?

Significant40,8%

I submitted a proposal8,9%

Not Significant17,0%

Not applicable11,4%

I don't know this programme

21,9%N=370


„Ideas“ - ERC

• ERC is rated as attractive esp. due to bottom-upapproach and One-principle-investigator-approach.

• However: unattractive about ERC is itscompetetiveness and low success rate / someresearchers prefer collaborative projects

• Interviews: Theme 8 SSH and ERC are complementary


FP7 Impact - Internationalisation

To what extent was your partnership already shaped before the start of proposal preparation?

Other; 2; 0,8%

A new partnership was constituted for the projec

proposal; 60; 25,0%

We were asked to join an existing group; 27; 11,3%

We had a core partnership already

existing from another projects and extended it

with new partners; 74; 30,8%

Most (more than half) of the partners have been

working together already on previous projects;

64; 26,7%

No clear opinion; 13; 5,4%

N=240


FP7 Impact - Internationalisation

Do you expect project partnerships to continue beyond the durationof the project?

This partnership did not continue/w ill probably not

continue after the completion of the project;

16; 13,4%

Other; 6; 5,0%

No clear opinion; 6; 5,0%The partnership w ent on/w ill go on,

independently of funding by the EU; 37; 31,1%

The partnership sought and received/w ill seek

new sources of funding by the EU; 54; 45,4%

N=119


Project results

• Questionnaire: In the assessment of researchers within funded projects, the project outcomes were more relevant for research than for policy:

So far what are the outcomes of the FP7 projects(s) you are/were involved in?- Please tick all that are applicable -

5

6

20

24

33

37

47

48

48

56

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

No clear opinion

Other

The project has just started - it is too early for such a statement

… the growth of new research projects supported by otherresearch funding programmes

… the production of policy recommendations

… research outcomes with strong relevance for policy initiatives

… the development of interdisciplinary approaches/meaningfulcooperation between disciplines

… research of wider European coverage than was previously thecase

… significant progress in comparative research methodologyand data

… significant progress beyond the state-of-the-art through newideas/concepts

The

proj

ect(s

) has

/hav

e le

d to

…

N=115


Impact - objectives

• Clear majority of interview partners stated that objectives/ impact in WP was indeed very relevant in their projects

• Too much policy-orientation in SSH WP? Researchers are devided in their opinions(1/3: yes; 1/3: no; 1/3: neither agree nor disagree)

• Difficulties concerning impact (interview partners):- impact focus might limit research perspective- impact is difficult to measure


International Cooperation

• Survey participants from Third Countries in general were very positive about FP7

• Majority of Third Country researchers stated thatscope of topics was relevant for them, objectives: some are relevant, others were not

• Researchers from Third Countries needparticularly help with consortium building(partner search services, networking opportunities)


Gender

• Majority of interview partners rate integration of genderaspects in all FP7 SSH research as importantDoubts that this is properly implemented in the project

• Questionnaire: nearly 50% agree that gender aspectsare adequately integrated in SSH work programmes, but29% disagree, 24% neither agree nor disagree


Recommendations

Recommendations, expressed by interview partners:

• Simplification!• More budget for Theme 8 SSH – reduce number

of excellent proposals not being funded!• Some topics should be more openly phrased

(„bottom-up character“)• Concentrate on Small & medium scale focused

research projects and more funded projects per topic(to gain more than just one perspective)!

• More humanities!

Date post:	14-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

FP7 SSH Commentary – First Results · FP7 SSH Commentary – First Results Christina Bitterberg...

Documents