1 / 14

EU/US Workshop on Peer Review: Assessing „broader impact“ in research grant applications Bruxelles, 13 December 2010 Hel

EU/US Workshop on Peer Review: Assessing „broader impact“ in research grant applications Bruxelles, 13 December 2010 Helga Nowotny Which Impact? Anticipated and unanticipated consequences. The broader context/framing. investment into STI seen as motor of economic growth

valmai
Download Presentation

EU/US Workshop on Peer Review: Assessing „broader impact“ in research grant applications Bruxelles, 13 December 2010 Hel

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EU/US Workshop on Peer Review: Assessing „broader impact“ in research grant applications Bruxelles, 13 December 2010 Helga Nowotny Which Impact? Anticipated and unanticipated consequences

  2. The broader context/framing • investment into STI seen as motor of economic growth • reworking the concept of intellectual value and use of academic knowledge production • impact as metrics of allocating, redistributing and regulating research funding (e.g. RAE in the UK will shift to metrics-based REF).

  3. Global investment in R&D in absolute and relative terms, 2007 (for selected countries and regions) Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics and World Bank

  4. BERD/GDP ratio for selceted countries 2000-2007 (%) Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from UNESCO Institute of Statistics

  5. Impact: what to look for and what to measure • impact definition and measurement produces a culture of anticipation • may produce perverse effects and ‘gaming’ • at grant proposal level: following the script or leaving room for improvisation A culture of anticipation produces anticipated and unanticipated outcomes/ consequences

  6. scientific value: publications as contributions to the world pool of open knowledge transmission of academic knowledge production to outside world economic benefits: return of the linear model in guise of „innovation chain“? training of people in relevant skills and knowledge wider educational impact/ knowledge society Anticipated outcomes/consequences

  7. The culture of anticipation – part 1 Culture of anticipation produces anticipated and unanticipated consequences, how? • funding agencies as „principal agent“ between government and researchers • information asymmetry and inherent uncertainty of research process • delicate balance: too much and too little pressure may lead to underperformance

  8. The culture of anticipation – part 2 • impact as product and producer of practices of anticipation enacted as consequential culture of compliance, esp.among younger researchers (streamlining of careers etc.) • practice of anticipation may become an end in itself • institutional support reinforces knowledge policy narratives (how the world is) and defines/restricts space for action

  9. Impact of frontier research: the example of the ERC • Ideas programme leads to first time ever competition at EU level: EU-added value • ERC grants: high reputational gains • institutional impact on universities and research institutions • raising standards of national funding agencies

  10. Primary impact: setting up European charimanship • ERC establishes the first European championship in frontier research • fair and open competition in championship „excellence only“ • best researchers compete, reputational gains accrue to individuals, host institutions and countries

  11. Secondary impact of European championship in „excellence only“ • push for continued modernization of (continental) European universities, e.g. greater autonomy, administration, services • push for more internationalization of universities (UK and CH host institutions as “winners”) • identification, recognition and cultivation of younger researchers • earlier scientific independence, portability of grants

  12. Secondary impact of championship „excellence only“, ctd. • excellence training in knowledge and skills as boost for next generation • 1400 ERC grantees employ at least 2 post-docs and 2 Ph.D. students each with high degree of international mobility • genuine European funding and evaluation culture in the making (raising standards, changing practice of recognizing excellence, keep it simple’) complementing national funding agencies

  13. Scientific specialization of the Triad, BRIC countries and Africa, 2008 Source: UNU-MERIT based on data from Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded)

  14. Conclusion: Impact as “making a difference” • ERC continues to make a difference through primary and secondary impact • belief systems have real consequences, in this case belief in „excellence only“ • broader impact in research grant applications: make sure what you target as primary goal (anticipated impact) • allow for secondary impact (unanticipated impact)

More Related