Download
report 1 consortium composition and rationales underlying projects n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects

Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects

81 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Report 1 Consortium composition and rationales underlying projects

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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.)

  3. 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.)

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

  5. 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

  6. 11. Participant motivation - Scientific Community building 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

  7. 15. Aims for scientific improvements 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

  8. 16. Dimensions of research integration - Cognitive 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 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

  9. 19.1. Have the goals changed significantly over time?