1. 1 “How does research integration work?” Assessing the work and impact of FP6 new instruments in the field of social sciences and humanities Tuesday, 17 June 2008, Brussels

2. 2 Dr. Fabrice Larat, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research, University of Mannheim Prof. Jakob Edler, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester Session 1 “Research integration in social sciences – an elusive concept?” Opening the Black Box: Some reflections on the nature and functions of research integration

3. 3 A stylised framework for structural change through European instruments Critical mass of involved participants Mobilized resources needed to cover transaction costs Appropriate mechanisms Targeted selection European framework for research cooperation ActorsKnowledge Issue IsolationFragmentation Spezialisation Original configuration of the thematic field Aggregation / new knowledge Cross- fertilization Structuration ActorsKnowledge Issue New configuration of the thematic field

4. 4 Two dimensions of integration: –cognitive –social Aggregation / new knowledge Cross-fertilization Structuration ActorsKnowledge Issue Social integration Cognitive integration

5. 5 General PurposeMechanismExpected outcome Step 1 Bridging “old” boundaries and delimitations. Free circulation of persons and ideas Opening opportunities for exchange and mobility. Supporting non-restrictive identification of and access to expertise. Making existing knowledge accessible A simplified, stylised step-wise model of integrative developments

6. 6 General PurposeMechanismExpected outcome Step 1 Bridging “old” boundaries and delimitations. Free circulation of persons and ideas Opening opportunities for exchange and mobility. Supporting non-restrictive identification of and access to expertise. Making existing knowledge accessible Step 2 Quantitative and qualitative increase of interactions between actors Creating incentives and dismantling hindrances for cooperation and collaboration Confronting perspectives and producing new knowledge A simplified, stylised step-wise model of integrative developments

7. 7 General PurposeMechanismExpected outcome Step 1 Bridging “old” boundaries and delimitations. Free circulation of persons and ideas Opening opportunities for exchange and mobility. Supporting non-restrictive identification of and access to expertise. Making existing knowledge accessible Step 2 Quantitative and qualitative increase of interactions between actors Creating incentives and dismantling hindrances for cooperation and collaboration Confronting perspectives and producing new knowledge Step 3 Creating a larger space of reference Supporting the emergence of a “we-feeling” (shift of orientations and expectations), creating sustainable common instruments or structures Referring to common definitions / mutual awareness about the meaning of concepts and definitions A simplified, stylised step-wise model of integrative developments

8. 8 General PurposeMechanismExpected outcome Step 1 Bridging “old” boundaries and delimitations. Free circulation of persons and ideas Opening opportunities for exchange and mobility. Supporting non-restrictive identification of and access to expertise. Making existing knowledge accessible Step 2 Quantitative and qualitative increase of interactions between actors Creating incentives and dismantling hindrances for cooperation and collaboration Confronting perspectives and producing new knowledge Step 3 Creating a larger space of reference Supporting the emergence of a “we-feeling” (shift of orientations and expectations), creating sustainable common instruments or structures Referring to common definitions / mutual awareness about the meaning of concepts and definitions A simplified, stylised step-wise model of integrative developments Just a heuristic tool Not a uniform or prescriptive model describing how integration should be or should proceed! Instead: Variations, incremental progresses, first step happiness, and cycles

9. 9 Mapping the starting points: Heterogeneity and Variety Disciplinary heterogeneity: variety of academic disciplines or sub- disciplines represented in the group - and more generally interested in the issue! (related: disciplinary identities in national contexts) Thematic and methodological heterogeneity: broadness of topics and questions addressed and diversity of methods applied by the group Institutional diversity: number, type (University, non-University..), academic strengths of different institutions represented and their relative weight in the group composition (related to that: geographic scope) Nature and scope of pre-existing cooperation and trans-national reference frame ( related: scientific or issue driven need for cooperation or collaboration)

10. PRIME = “Policies For research and Innovation in the move towards the European Research Area” Network of Excellence. Duration: 2004-08 Nearly 50 member institutes Objectives: 1.Make pioneering contributions on key emerging issues in research and innovation policy 2.Lower the entry cost for excellence by integrating smaller and younger teams in the NoE 3.Establish a critical mass of leading researchers with high international visibility, however, focusing on the new generation of senior researchers 4.Promote lasting co-operation and integration By way of examples: PRIME and CONNEX

11. CONNEX = "Connecting Excellence on European Governance“ Network of Excellence. Duration: 2004-2008 42 partner institutions, more than 170 individual researchers participating Budget 3,5 Millions € Objectives: 1.Mobilising outstanding scholars all over Europe to deepen our knowledge of the present state and likely future development of European multilevel governance, its assets and deficiencies in terms of problem-solving capacity and democratic legitimacy; 2.Building a Europe-wide research community which stands for scientific excellence and for providing added value for prospective users.

12. 12 A very simple core message: The meaning of and conditions for integration differ with the structural background PRIMECONNEX Disciplinary heterogeneity Highly multi- and inter- disciplinary Participants and activities not firmly rooted in national disciplinary contexts NoE means for cross- disciplinary „identity-building One lead discipline, limited interest of neighbouring disciplines Firmly rooted in national contexts NoE means for cross- disciplinary fertilization

13. 13 A very simple core message: The meaning of and conditions for Integration differ with the structural background PRIMECONNEX Disciplinary heterogeneity Highly multi- and inter- disciplinary Participants and activities not firmly rooted in national disciplinary contexts NoE means for cross- disciplinary „identity-building“ One lead discipline, limited interest of neighbouring disciplines Firmly rooted in national contexts NoE means for cross- disciplinary fertilization Thematic heterogeneity Mutli-thematic within a broadly defined issue area (innovation and science dynamics, governance challenges in ERA) Multi-thematic within a narrowly defined issue area (European governance)

14. 14 A simple core message: The meaning of and conditions for Integration differ with the structural background PRIMECONNEX Institutional diversity University, non-University institutes, limited in geographical scope because of lack of competencies/ structures Solely universities and research institutes Broad geographical coverage

15. 15 A simple core message: The meaning of and conditions for Integration differ with the structural background PRIMECONNEX Institutional diversity University, non-University institutes, limited in geographical scope because of lack of competencies/ structures Solely universities and research institutes Broad geographical coverage Pre-existing cooperation / Need for cooperation Strong tradition (first structures 1974!), internat. collab. Scientifically and issue driven need, traditionally high demand from international bodies and community Fragmentation of issue relevant expertise across Europe Emerging trans-national academic discourse on the topic but somewhat limited cooperation

16. 16 Integration can take different shapes PRIME (much more elaborated by Nedeva/Luukkonen) –Further established an interdisciplinary field across Europe –Strengthened and deepened the community (new teams, database etc.) –Influenced the academic and policy discourse within the issue area through novel and joint approaches – investment in research also –Reference point and platform for next generation Challenges: No chance of integrating the periphery (you can only integrate what you have!) All inclusive bottom up integration vs. strong agenda, strong and visible output and impact Sustainability: Aspiration to build lasting structures, platforms training, exchange, frontier research, referencing )

17. 17 Integration can take different shapes Connex -Knowledge fragmentation overwhelmed through linking different relevant issues and stock taking activities -New actor-structuration through cross-communities inter-actions –Mutual fertilisation took place within one lead discipline (political science) –Could not integrate very much from other disciplines (some good exceptions): you can only integrate what is interested and fit Challenges faced: –Being inclusive and maintaining scientific excellence –Combining bottom-up approach with necessities of central coordination –Developing appropriate integrative activities that enable accumulation and sharing of knowledge at research groups AND at consortium level Sustainability of „integration“: No institutional commitments but ad-hoc initiatives at individual level to continue cooperation on specific aspects of the CONNEX thematic Joint identification of new venues of research and better transparency on existing knowledge and expertise

18. 18 Conclusion: Towards understanding “integration” in concrete settings Context specific objectives and trajectories Different levels of heterogeneity and diversity shaping interest and expectations – and impact of integrative instruments Not all dimensions of integration equally important for all and at the same moment Integration has no defined end-point, and can be periodic also (issues die!) We can assume a link between concrete set up of large projects and integrative goals and impact Ergo:  No ‘one size fits all’ solution or model !  Only context specific, multi-dimensional assessments make sense

19. 19 Conclusion: Towards understanding “integration” in concrete settings Context specific objectives and trajectories Different levels of heterogeneity and diversity shaping interest and expectations – and impact of integrative instruments Not all dimensions of integration equally important for all and at the same moment Integration has no defined end-point, and can be periodic also (issues die!) We can assume a link between concrete set up of large projects and integrative goals and impact Ergo:  No ‘one size fits all’ solution or model !!!  Only context specific, multi-dimensional assessments make sense Hypothesis: Many paths lead to Rome… It is important to know more about the starting points and integration strategies followed by the different projects