Report 5 Incentives for and obstacles to cooperation Efforts for continuation Self assessment by Coordinators Jakob Edler MBS, University of Manchester Conference, How does research integration work? Tuesday, 17 June 2008, Brussels

33. How do the following features affect concrete cooperation in your IP / NoE? Variety: Degree of academic heterogeneity Disciplinary heterogeneity Thematic heterogeneity Institutional diversity Geographical diversity / breadth Trust / Experience: First time cooperation Clear Programme: Obligatioun to stick to JAP content Administration and support Management and involvement of the Commission Reporting duties The regulations to use the money Support from home base Co-funding and support of partner institutions Scale: -3 strongly negative, +3 strongly positive

What affects cooperation Heterogeneity (in various dimensions) as trigger for cooperation except for institutional diversity (academic – non-academic) Clear Programme supports cooperation First time cooperation no hindrance

33. How do the following features affect concrete cooperation in your IP / NoE?

34.1 All in all do you think that your IP/NoE had the ‘critical mass’ needed to reach your objectives? Yes: 30 (96,8%) No: 1 (3,2%) Breadth of participation no limitation: The projects had the participation they needed

35. Incentives Which kind of incentives (material and non material ones) have you used in order to keep participants mobilised and to facilitate cooperation and exchange? Allocation of material resources (money or human resources) Opportunities like publication, training Developing group feeling / creating strong external image Demonstrating the importance and usefulness of NoE / IP for research Appealing to sense of duty Developing events and methods for effective interaction between academic and non-academic partners Did Networks / IP mobilise, and if so how?

35. Incentives Which kind of incentives (material and non material ones) have you used in order to keep participants mobilised and to facilitate cooperation and exchange? (not used, a few times, to some degree, widel used) Developing events and methods for effective interaction between academic and non-academic partners Allocation of material resources (money or human resources) Developing group feeling / creating strong external image Opportunities like publication, training Demonstrating the importance and usefulness of NoE / IP for research Appealing to sense of duty

36. Is there any willingness and are steps being taken as to the following forms of sustainability? NoYesWillingnessConcrete steps "concrete steps" out of total Maintain by and large the whole NoE / IP43,80%56,20%57,10%42,90%24,11% Maintain selected institutional relationships18,80%81,20%66,70%33,30%27,04% Maintain certain activities9,40%90,60%66,70%33,30%30,17% Maintain newly defined research lines31,20%68,80%72,00%28,00%19,26% (only?) And where now?

The achievements Self Assessment by the Coordinators

38 and 39. How would you as a coordinator assess the developments of integration along the following dimensions? How would you as a coordinator assess the developments of integration along the following dimensions? Degree ofvery strongweak verynot anValid importancestrongweakissueCases Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines  Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  Deepening inter-organisational interactions  Sharing infrastructure 

Social integration appears more important Degree ofvery strongweak verynot anValid importancestrongweakissueCases Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines  Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  Deepening inter-organisational interactions  Sharing infrastructure 

Strongest development: Concrete inter-personal / inter-lab cooperation and young generation Degree ofvery strongweak verynot anValid importancestrongweakissueCases Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines  Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  Deepening inter-organisational interactions  Sharing infrastructure 

Some claim of strong cognitive integration Degree ofvery strongweak verynot anValid importancestrongweakissueCases Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines  Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  Deepening inter-organisational interactions  Sharing infrastructure 

40. Overall self-assessment: Achievement of goals In a very rough, general and personal assessment, please indicate how your NOE / IP has contributed to the following goals / issues 0=has not been an issue/goal, 1=very weak improvement, 4=very strong improvement has not been an issue 4=very strong top two: strong / very strong improvements Adding specialised subject knowledge (e.g. expertise in a certain data analysis method) to given research design Taking stock of existing knowledge and making it available for participants of the NoE / IP (and possibly for the whole research community) Adding disciplinary or geographical perspective to a research topic Integrating trans/multidisciplinary aspects Shaping research agendas on white spots Develop foresight of emerging issues/problems to be addressed (also) through research Developing new venues for research Enhance EU policy relevance of research results Increasing relevance for public debate –e.g. through media, involvement of civil society organisations, etc Contributing to the major ERA dimensions Cost savings and more efficiency of research71 9

Heterogeneity enriches and fosters cooperation, no contraditction to variety and competition Social integration more important, or simply better to grasp? Young European generation / training a major dimension: what does that mean for Europe? Is MC enough? Some new research venues and white spots: self-defined multi-annual programmes enable creative research integration can trigger and sustain something new rigidity vs. flexibility of goals and content? Setting agendas, exploring future themes (foresight aspects): Positive? In which instances Where to go from here – and how: do we have the variable instruments to support transaction costs of various forms? Are the foreseen building blocks flexible enough to capture variety? Impact of integration: Various levels and dimensions Different set of actors Measured against the (initial?) objectives of the project Some key aspects