Suchergebnisse

The EU Framework Programmes (FPs) constitute large arenas for R&D funding and cooperation with research groups in Europe and beyond. For Norway, participation in the EU Framework Programmes (FP) has become an increasingly important dimension of national R&D and innovation policy. Current national R&D priorities are well harmonized with the European agenda, and the annual contribution to Horizon 2020 constitutes a major national investment. Against this background, it is legitimate to expect a considerable return from the participation, both in economic, scientific and societal terms. This report describes a study where we focus on project consortia and their importance for success, participation and cooperation in EU framework programmes. In large parts of these programmes, joining and composing the right consortium is considered a key factor for success. The main questions behind this study is therefore: What characterises successful consortia in EU framework programmes? To what extent are Norwegian researchers and research groups able to form and join such consortia

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation (FP7 & H2020), we investigate whether different public funding agencies have different goals in their research policy. Our results support the hypotheses that funded research output represents the intentions of funding sponsors and a high level of public funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results show that FP7/H2020 funded projects do not have a positive contribution to the output of joint publications between China and the EU. Interestingly, cooperation in the form of jointly writing proposals to these EU programmes, especially when they are not granted by the European Commission, can contribute significantly to joint scientific publications at a later stage. This applies in particular to cases where funding from China is involved. Our findings highlight the key role that funding agencies play in influencing research performance. While the Chinese government is interested in pursuing a high number of publications, the EU cares more about the social impact and indirect effect, which is hard to measure in the short term.

Previous studies have pointed at participation in the European Framework Programs for Research and Innovation as elite driven, foremost by large and prestigious universities. By analyzing all proposals (including rejected proposals) rather than funded projects only, we have investigated whether such findings also hold for success in proposal decisions. We study which university characteristics are associated with successful proposal outcomes. Our study finds that university size is indeed an important driver for success, but independent of size; it is essential with a relative high volume of proposals. Those Higher Education Institutions who submit relatively many proposals compared to their size performs better, especially in the European Research Council. What are important success criterions vary across thematic areas and to some extent over time, reflecting changing goals of the EU programs. Success is based on complex mechanisms, where many universities—irrespective of size—for different reasons perform well in the framework programs.

Why some countries are more successful than others at securing European research and innovation grants is a question that has recently received significant attention in the research and policy communities. This article helps answer this question by investigating the role of firms in securing financial returns from EU Framework Programmes. More specifically, it explores how three firm characteristics – size, industrial sector, and country – can lead to increased participation in and larger grants from EU projects. The analysis is carried out using logistic and linear regressions on a combined data set consisting of data on Framework Programmes participation and firm characteristics. The analysis presents results for firms from four Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden – and their involvement in Horizon 2020. ; publishedVersion

The Norwegian government should utilize the Fulbright Program to a greater extent to support policy goals for the internationalization of higher education and research. This evaluation has demonstrated that there is more flexibility in the program than the written materials suggest. Interviews with the responsible American partners demonstrated a willingness to construct grants and awards based on the national circumstances. If the Norwegian government so wishes, there is room for closer dialogue with the FFN about the kind of grants that will reinforce common fields of interest for Norwegian policy goals and the visions of the Fulbright Program. This can and should be done without the Norwegian government interfering with the fundamental vision of the Fulbright Program.