1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. 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

6. 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? 35.1. Allocation of material resources (money or human resources) 35.2. Opportunities like publication, training 35.3. Developing group feeling / creating strong external image 35.4. Demonstrating the importance and usefulness of NoE / IP for research 35.5. Appealing to sense of duty 35.6. Developing events and methods for effective interaction between academic and non-academic partners Did Networks / IP mobilise, and if so how?

7. 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) 35.6. Developing events and methods for effective interaction between academic and non-academic partners 35.1. Allocation of material resources (money or human resources) 35.3. Developing group feeling / creating strong external image 35.2. Opportunities like publication, training 35.4. Demonstrating the importance and usefulness of NoE / IP for research 35.5. Appealing to sense of duty

8. 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?

9. The achievements Self Assessment by the Coordinators

10. 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  31 517811 Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  30 912812 Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  27 711815 Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  181130032 Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  171122032 Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  171050032 Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  101362131 Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  8866428 Deepening inter-organisational interactions  6885527 Sharing infrastructure  29831022

11. Social integration appears more important Degree ofvery strongweak verynot anValid importancestrongweakissueCases Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines  31 517811 Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  30 912812 Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  27 711815 Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  181130032 Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  171122032 Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  171050032 Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  101362131 Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  8866428 Deepening inter-organisational interactions  6885527 Sharing infrastructure  29831022

12. 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  31 517811 Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  30 912812 Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  27 711815 Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  181130032 Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  171122032 Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  171050032 Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  101362131 Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  8866428 Deepening inter-organisational interactions  6885527 Sharing infrastructure  29831022

13. Some claim of strong cognitive integration Degree ofvery strongweak verynot anValid importancestrongweakissueCases Dimensions related to cognitive integration Overcoming disciplinary boundaries, linking disciplines  31 517811 Bringing together, linking different epistemological/ ontological/ methodological approaches  30 912812 Bringing together, linking different national academic traditions  27 711815 Dimensions related to social integration Broadening the number of interactions between persons/labs  181130032 Bringing the young generation into established and emerging networks  171122032 Deepening the number of interactions between persons/labs  171050032 Enlarging the geographical scope of relations in the area  101362131 Broadening the number of inter-organisational interactions  8866428 Deepening inter-organisational interactions  6885527 Sharing infrastructure  29831022

14. 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 40.2. Adding specialised subject knowledge (e.g. expertise in a certain data analysis method) to given research design1625 40.1. Taking stock of existing knowledge and making it available for participants of the NoE / IP (and possibly for the whole research community)1721 40.3. Adding disciplinary or geographical perspective to a research topic2621 40.4. Integrating trans/multidisciplinary aspects1521 40.5. Shaping research agendas on white spots3821 40.8. Develop foresight of emerging issues/problems to be addressed (also) through research2522 40.6. Developing new venues for research3720 40.7. Enhance EU policy relevance of research results0618 40.9. Increasing relevance for public debate –e.g. through media, involvement of civil society organisations, etc2217 40.10. Contributing to the major ERA dimensions2515 40.11. Cost savings and more efficiency of research71 9

15. 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