Feasibility of extending network analysis to alternative data sources

(COST, ERC, EUREKA)

European R&D policy instruments in perspective

European RTD policy is formulated at multiple levels of governance, with EU competences overlapping with those of national and regional authorities. The current landscape is conditioned by a long history of common research policies and the coordination of national research policies. Historically, the benefits of common policies for basic research, in terms of knowledge diffusion, capability development and critical mass effects, have been obvious.

Hence, the development of a common budget for pre-competitive collaborative research in the form of ESPRIT and later the FP has been a largely uncontentious matter.

Figure 20: Position of European collaborative R&D instruments

89

A na ly sis o f Ne tw or ks i n E ur op ea n F ra m ew or k P ro gr am m es ( 19 84 -2 00 6)

However, national authorities have been less eager to relinquish control over funds for research that is close to the market. The emergence of a transnational initiative for applied research in the form of EUREKA in the mid-1980s came as a response to the Commission’s efforts to facilitate greater coherence in applied R&D (Georghiou, 2001). To this day, funding for such research comes from national sources.

Figure 20 positions the various instruments along a basic/applied research axis. At the

‘basic’ end of the spectrum, the ERC and the FP’s Networks of Excellence (NoE) target more

science oriented, blue-sky type research.

EUREKA caters for the ‘applied’ end of the spectrum, followed by the FP’s Shared Cost Actions (CSC), Specific Targeted Research Projects (STREP) and Integrated Projects (IP), with COST in-between.

The various instruments are called to fulfil different but ultimately inter-complementary missions. Collectively they can be seen as the result of efforts to form a coherent ‘research and innovation’ policy spanning the whole of the continent.

Table 61: Feature comparison of databases of European collaborative R&D instruments

FP COST ERC EUREKA

(varies from 2216 in FP1 up to 25840 in FP5)

Instruments available IP, NoE, STREPs, etc. COST Grants, Meetings, STSM missions, Training

No Yes Only at the country level

Data publicly available Yes

90

C ha pt er 7 : F ut ur e r es ea rc h d ir ec ti on s

Data availability and potential for analysis

There is a sprawling literature examining specific forms of R&D collaboration, such as those recorded in scientific publications and patenting, but relatively little is known about R&D collaborations facilitated by policy. Comparing the analysis of the FP with those of alternative data sources could help towards ascertaining its individual characteristics and this way better understand its role in the European research system.

This section presents a feasibility assessment of extending network analysis performed thusfar on the FP to other European instruments for collaborative R&D. Table 61 presents a feature comparison of the respective databases of the aforementioned instruments and the FPTable 61.

In terms of data quantity and public availability, the FP and the EUREKA databases are the most voluminous and most easily accessible data sources. COST too has potentially voluminous data of very high value for policy-relevant analysis, but it is currently in a form that is costly to collect, process and analyse (the current lack of studies is probably a testament to this). ERC could also evolve into a valuable resource, but it is simply too new to produce meaningful insights at the European level. Its value instead may lie in shedding light on the dynamics of human resource mobility within specific disciplines, offering a snapshot of the upper-tail of the quality distribution.

The type and amount of information available indicate that all three data sources are receptive to some form of network analysis, though the precise scope will vary in each case. A conceptualisation of common elements of analysis is presented in Figure 21. It is obvious from this figure and our discussion so far that variation in data availability, in the types of programmes and research themes/

domains renders the possibility of cross-instrument analysis remote. Crucially, the differences in rationales between instruments may mean that even when cross-instrument analysis is possible, it may not be meaningful. A holistic analysis of European R&D instruments may be better served by an approach that treats them as separate but inter-complementary components.

The processing of COST, ERC and EUREKA data in a form that is suitable for network analysis, would form a valuable asset on its own right and could pave the way to additional policy-relevant studies. One could for instance, investigate the possibility to link COST, ERC and EUREKA with research output data (publications, patents, copyrights), along the lines of on-going work in the FP, and thus get a feel for the impact of each instrument in terms of R&D outputs.

A particularly fascinating possibility arising from the availability of a complete dataset on all four instruments (FP, COST, ERC, EUREKA) is the Figure 21: Common elements of analysis

91

A na ly sis o f Ne tw or ks i n E ur op ea n F ra m ew or k P ro gr am m es ( 19 84 -2 00 6)

joint examination of the participation of the same actors across the various instruments. For example, network analysis that treats the instruments as nodes could identify those instruments that are central in framing research in particular disciplines and chart the evolution of such centrality over time. It would highlight the key organisations

facilitating the flow of knowledge from the basic-research end of the spectrum to the applied one (and vice versa). In doing so, it would unravel the structure and properties of the emerging ‘system of instruments’ and thus contribute to a better understanding of the breadth of European RTD policy levers.

93

A na ly sis o f Ne tw or ks i n E ur op ea n F ra m ew or k P ro gr am m es ( 19 84 -2 00 6)