Report 1 consortium composition and rationales underlying projects
Download
1 / 9

Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 66 Views
  • Uploaded on

Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects. Slava Mikhaylov Trinity College Dublin. Conference, How does research integration work? Tuesday, 17 June 2008, Brussels. Choice of partner institutions.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects' - ophrah


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Report 1 consortium composition and rationales underlying projects

Report 1Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects

Slava Mikhaylov

Trinity College Dublin

Conference, How does research integration work?

Tuesday, 17 June 2008, Brussels


Choice of partner institutions

Which 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 important criteria (NOTE: Not more than three criteria should be marked.)


Choice of individual participants

Which 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 three criteria should be marked.)


Level of involvement

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


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

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

9.1.: Overcoming research fragmentation

9.2. Conducting focused research in an appropriate way

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

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

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 Europe


11. Participant motivation - Scientific Community building capacity

How important were – on average –

the following drivers for the participants to engage in the IP / NoE

with regards to: Scientific Community building

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

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

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

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

13.1. Exploitation of results for EU policy making

13.2. Participation to policy debates

13.3. Building the ERA


15. Aims for scientific improvements capacity

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


16. Dimensions of research integration - Cognitive factors capacity

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

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 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

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



ad