Wilhelm Krull

Opportunities and Challenges for Regional S&T Policies in a New European Research Area

Bilbao

11 March 2004

www.volkswagenstiftung.de

(Oswald Huber)

Institute for Statistics

You are here (with a probability of 97,5 %)

Orientation in a knowledge-based society…

(Oswald Huber)

Department of Quantum Physics

Here or Here

You are either

(Oswald Huber)

INSTITUTE FOR PHILOSOPHY

If you exist at all, you are here!

Major Changes and Challenges in Research and Higher Education I

The impact of electronic communication on the creation, distribution,

and absorption of new knowledge – how are we to bridge the gap between

the rapidity of change and the time-lag of institutional responses?

The increased emphasis on transdisciplinary approaches. – How can

we stimulate the implementation of transdisciplinary institutional

structures, in particular in our universities?

The move from bi-, or trilateral internationalisation towards network

approaches and strategic alliances in higher education and research. –

How can we meet the growing demand for interculturally competent

people?

Major Changes and Challenges in Research and Higher Education II

The changing public private interface and its consequences for the division of labour in our RTD systems. – How can we succeed in initiating a process of deregulation, mutual learning, and of gradually building trust in each other’s intention and capabilities?

The need to integrate evaluation, foresight and priority-setting, and to increase public involvement – How are we to provide valid and coherent information for the decision-making processes?

The need for new policy and management approaches – how are we to over come institutional barriers, and to create more research-friendly institutional structures at the European level?

Challenge 1: How are we to bridge the gap between the rapidity of change and the time-lag of institutional responses?

- Action instead of reaction: The institutions themselves have to create and promote change instead of only trying to respond to the changes imposed upon them.

- Shared risk taking is one of the most important, if not the crucial institutional response to the changing research

environment

Challenge 2: How can we stimulate the implementation of transdisciplinary institutional structures, in particular in our universities?

- Provide new stimuli and incentives for the creation of adequately designed transdisciplinary institutional structures

- Strike a balance between the urgently needed commitment of researchers to interdisciplinary projects and the

openness of academic institutions to consider these researchers as equally suitable candidates for professorships

New Knowledge and New Technologies

Vision

Develop corporate idenitity

Define long-term

objectives

Create a climate of

change

Culture

Keep cultural heritage alive

Improve quality

Create a climate of

mutual trust

Organisation

Improve Governance Structures

Enhance openness and transparency

Make management

processes more effective

Resources

Recruit high quality

personnel

Provide sufficient funds

Secure high standards in infrastructure

to accessto distributeto produce

Pillars of Success of a University

Diversity – Communication - Connectedness

Degree of communication

high

Degree of Scientific Diversity high

Breakthroughs

Quelle: J. Rogers Hollingsworth: The Role of Organizations and Institutions in the Innovation Process, 2000 (typescript).

Paving the Way for Interdisciplinary Research Careers

Research Professorships in the Humanities and Social Sciences

Lecturer / Research Assistant

Lichtenberg-

(Full) Professorship

Graduation no funding

ProfessorshipsAssistant-Professorship / Juniorprofessur

Postdoc

Postdocs in Tandem, Bridging the Gap

Funding only within research projectsDoctoral Thesis

Steps in a researcher‘s carreerPersonal Funding Opportunities of the Volkswagen Foundation

Challenge 3: How can we meet the growing demand for interculturally competent people?

- By giving young people incentives to develop intercultural competences

- Intercultural competences are not an end in itself – they are core qualifications to meet future challenges

- examples of such an incentive could look like the initiative European Foreign and Security Policy Studies – a joint research and training programme by European foundations

European Young Investigator Awards - EURYI

- promoted by the Heads of European Research Councils (EUROHORCs) in collaboration with the European

Science Foundation (ESF)

- designed to attract outstanding young scientists to create their own research teams at European research centres

- aiming at enabling and encouraging outstanding young researchers from all over the world to work in a European environment for the development of European science and humanities and to build the next generation of leading

European researchers

- 25 awards of up to EUR 250 000 p. a. for 5 year periods will be made in 2004

How should young researchers be trained?

a more structured postgraduate education is necessary

new curricula have to comprise non-disciplinary topics such as - intellectual property, - science ethics, - history of the discipline, - interpersonal communication, - media skills

the aim should be to enable the researcher to explain and communicate - what his research is about,

- how he is conducting it, - and especially why he is doing it

“We share the belief that Ph.D.-holders ought to be trained to be rigorous researchers and scholars. But we believe that it is timely for the disciplines to reflect on improvements that would empower those attaining the doctorate to be more effective researchers and teachers. We believe that the framework of stewardship offers a broader conceptualization of doctoral education than the present graduate experience typically includes. Faculty and departmental leadership in the disciplines is a crucial focus of the initiative.”

The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate

„Steward of a Discipline“

„The Ph.D. holder should be capable of generating new knowledge and defending knowledge claims against challenges and criticism; of conserving the most important ideas and findings that are a legacy of past and current work; and of transforming knowledge that has been generated and conserved into powerful pedagogies of engagement, understanding and application.”

[…]

“The formulation of stewardship is discipline-specific. […] We are committed to locating this initiative in the context of each discipline, recognizing that there will be discipline-specific lessons as well as cross-disciplinary insights to be gained.”

An Example: Doctoral Education in Chemistry As proposed by Alvin L. Kwiram, University of Washington, Seattle

An Example: Doctoral Education in Chemistry As proposed by Alvin L. Kwiram, University of Washington, Seattle

Challenge 4: How can we succeed in initiating a process of deregulation, mutual learning, and of gradually building trust in each other’s intention and capabilities?

- It is probably impossible to find a solution acceptable to all parties involved during a time of economic stagnation and financial shortages.

- Public-private-partnership is by no means only a way to save money: It is a way to increase quality and output. If we merely use PPP to cut costs we are misjudging its potential and creating distrust among the institutions involved.

The Rector of the Future?

Re-thinking Science (Nowotny, Scott, Gibbons) I

„Reverse communication“: With the new modes of knowledge

production conditions are established in which society can ‚speak back‘ to

science […] Science and society have both become transgressive; that is,

each has invaded the other‘s domain, and the lines demarcating the one

from the other have all disappeared.

„Contextualization“: Not only an increase in the number of participants

in the scientific process, but also a change in the shared definition of

problems, research priorities, and the place accorded to people in the

production of knowledge.

Re-thinking Science (Nowotny, Scott, Gibbons) II

„Socially Robust Knowledge“: Science cannot be validated as

reliable by conventional discipline-bounded norms; while becoming robust,

it must be sensitive to a much wider range of social implications. It has to

move into the agora, the space in which societal and scientific problems

are framed and defined, and where what will be accepted as a ‚solution‘ is

being negotiated“

“More complex role for social and technical expertise“: The role of

scientific and technical expertise is changing as expertise becomes socially

distributed. The consequence is the fragmentation of established linkages

between expertise and established institutional structures whether of

government, industry, or the professions.

Challenge 5: How are we to provide valid and coherent information for the decision-making processes?

- The usual key figures, such as scientific publications and patents are only intermediate outputs of research.

- Their measurement cannot be more than a partial proxy for the achievement of broader goals in the advancement of knowledge and achievement of social and economic

progress.

- Careful and systematic international comparison allows countries to ask questions about the configuration of their research and innovation systems – not necessarily to answer those questions.

And here we simulate the assessment of our research proposal!

Nanoscience

projects, networks, research units

evaluation results evaluation results

evaluation results

evaluation results

priority areas research institutes

programmes or research organizations

system

The Evaluation Pyramid

Evaluation of R&D Programmes

1. Objectives, timing, consensus, and cooperation

2. Organizational Framework - independence and transparency- selection of evaluation panel

3. Dimensions, methods and techniques - in terms of science, research policy and research areas

- structures, processes, results → scientific/technical performance: peer review, bibliometrics, etc.

→ socio-economic effects: data analyses, surveys, etc.

→ implementation and management: process analyses, interviews

→ broad analyses of effects: studies

4. Reporting System- presentation of results- feedback mechanisms, interaction- monitoring of implementation

Success in Evaluation: Prerequisites and Processes

1. Target explication: Defining the objectives of the institution as well as the evaluation; process orientation.

2. Evaluation standards: criteria, indicators, impact factors, etc.; integration of quantitative and qualitative methods.

3. Working scheme; consistent organizational framework conditions; time schemes for evaluation procedures, but also for their repetition; transition from internal to external evaluation.

4. Interactive procedure; state of the art, dialogue, evaluation; transparency, implementation, and securing impact.

5. Comparative evaluation; structures, processes, results; national and international comparisons.

6. Reporting system; addressing different levels of stakeholders with clear-cut, and implementable recommendations; adequate forms of reporting.

7. Follow-up activities; involvement into monitoring and decision-making processes; monitoring of implementation.

Challenge 6: How are we to overcome institutional barriers, and to create more research-friendly institutional structures at the European level

Create a European Research Council acting as

- spearhead of institutional reform

- catalyst of new inter- and transdisciplinary research activities

- creator of new transnational funding opportunities for young researchers

- provider of a more research-friendly administrative and organizational environment urgently needed to attract more foreign researchers to European institutions.

• A European Research Council could be an appropriate institutional response and answer to some of the urgent challenges Europe faces, provided that its level of funding is commensurate. A research council on a European level would reduce fragmentation and ensure that European research is competitive in a global context.

• For research infrastructures and major projects, it could provide the critical mass in terms of finance, human resources and expertise that are all beyond the reach of a single European country.

• Competing for funds at the level of the entire continent would inevitably mean an overall increase in the quality of European research: competition would drive up the quality of science in Europe, while at the same time stimulating strategic research co-operation in Europe.

• An ERC with a high level of autonomy and a low level of bureaucracy could also provide elements for a solid and sound European science policy.

An idea whose time has come!

The „Magic Triangle“ of Successful Research

Trust

Quality assurance and evaluation

Ris

k-ta

king

Flexibility