Home » Universities (Page 2)
Category Archives: Universities
Horizon 2020: Science with a Con-science
Diana Jane Beech
A high-level round table of important players in the European Research Area took place earlier this month to discuss the ethics and values that should lie at the heart of the forthcoming Horizon 2020 programme. At stake is the future of European research.
The European Research Area, or ERA, is bracing itself for a major change on the ‘horizon’. On 1 January 2014, the way the European Union (EU) selects and supports science projects will be superseded by the ‘Horizon 2020’ framework programme.
Equipped with a long-range budget of over €70 billion, Horizon 2020 can already lay claim to being Europe’s largest research programme.
With ‘Excellent Science’ clearly earmarked as one of its three priority areas, Horizon 2020 specifically seeks to raise the level of excellence in Europe’s science base and to foster a steady stream of world-class research, primarily to create new jobs and growth in Europe, and to secure the EU’s long-term competitiveness.
Over the course of the next seven years, then, hundreds of thousands of researchers and entrepreneurs in the EU – together with their partners across the globe – will receive funding to carry out frontier research of the highest quality in both academia and industry.
The intention is to open up new and promising fields of innovation, while working to overcome many of the world’s ‘grand challenges’ such as pandemics, climate change, security threats, and food and energy shortages.
Values and ethics
The strategic importance of science to the EU’s political agenda is clear.
Yet, while European officials and stakeholders in the research area are busily counting down to the launch of Horizon 2020, has anybody spared sufficient thought for what the role and place of values and ethics will be in the EU’s new research programme?
Until now, the focus of policy discussions has been firmly fixed on the potential of the new framework programme to break down barriers to create a genuine single European market for knowledge. Little thought has been given to defining and maintaining the ethical boundaries of European research that are so vital to its future flourishing and success.
A select group of leaders in Europe’s research and innovation community are, however, beginning to change all this and put attention back on the ‘big’ questions inherent to European science.
As recently as 5 November, some 30 ‘big names’ in the ERA got together in a high-level roundtable – the first of its kind dedicated to discussing the most pressing questions of values and ethics in the construction of ERA policy.
Forming part of a wider research project run by the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in Cambridge, in the UK, the workshop was generously hosted by the Norwegian Mission to the EU under the auspices of Science Business.
The purpose of the day was to bring together leading figures from academia and industry, with members of the European parliament and scientific advisors, to reflect on the core values that are needed to drive European innovation in the ‘right’ direction for the future – and, ultimately, to draft an ethical charter for European research.
ERA’s moral purpose
Acknowledging the fact that Europe’s larger pot of public funding for research brings with it an increased number of ethical quandaries, participants were asked to think seriously about what sort of projects the EU should be funding, under what terms, and for whose benefits. At issue in the debate were the broader values of European science, and not merely its economic or social value.
As such, discussions brought to the fore some of the biggest questions surrounding the nature of Europe’s growing ‘knowledge economy’, as participants grappled to define the moral purpose of the ERA: Where is it going? Where should it be going? And what is needed to keep it on the ‘right’ track for the future?
Specific questions were asked about Horizon 2020 funds. In particular, participants debated whether the money should be used to support excellent research wherever it may be in the EU, or whether it should be distributed among the EU-28 and its respective research communities according to shared principles of fairness and equality.
Questions were also raised about the wider purpose of the money – specifically whether it should be used to promote research that generated ‘pure’ knowledge, or to support only those projects that clearly demonstrated European ‘added value’ such as the creation of new jobs, products and services.
Dichotomies of modern-day research dominated discussions, and participants debated at length the issues raised by private gain versus public good, trust versus accountability, and freedom versus solidarity.
Central to all of these issue clusters were questions of responsibility. For example, what responsibility, if any, do ERA policy-makers have to ensure that Europe’s research outputs are used for the good of the wider society?
To what extent do researchers receiving EU funds, and their institutions, share this responsibility? And how do we ensure a basic level of scientific integrity, particularly in the light of Horizon 2020’s emphasis on collaborations across borders, disciplines and sectors?
The detailed results of the round table are due to be published in an official report by Science Business at the end of this month. The results will form the basis of a new charter for European research that seeks to ensure the aims of Europe’s new framework programme remain as holistic as its intended approach.
The future and success of European science policy is about much more than science itself. It stems from a rich post-war history of scientific diplomacy continually bringing people together for purposes of peace and prosperity and the common good.
To move effectively into the future, then, Horizon 2020 needs to embrace this value-driven approach, not simply developing Europe’s science, but developing Europe’s con-science as well.
* Dr Diana Jane Beech is a research associate at the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion in Cambridge, UK, where she is currently working on a project exploring the role and relevance of values in the European Research Area, or ERA. She is also an active member of the ‘Voice of the Researchers’ multipliers group and the communications coordinator of a collaborative research network dedicated to the study of the ERA.
This article was originally published in the University World News, 22 November 2013, Issue No:297. It also appeared on the Ideas on Europe blog.
Construction of the European Area of Skills and Qualifications: Challenges and Opportunities
Marta Ponikowska
Today mobility across national borders is seen as increasingly important for competitive labor market, excellent research and higher education. Free movement of people is one of the four freedoms constituting the EU Single Market. Facilitating mobility of researchers is among the core aims of the European Research Area, while the ERASMUS programme supports student mobility.
However, international mobility requires specific mechanisms and instruments that would allow people to properly set up in their new homelands – find places to study and work. That is why the key issue related to the development of the European mobility is the ability to compare and recognize qualifications for the needs of lifelong learning and labor market. It should be stressed that the transparency of qualifications systems and recognition of qualifications is very important in the context of mobility not only within the EU but also around the world.
For some years we can observe various instruments introduced by the EU, supporting the process of building the European Area of Skills and Qualifications. The European Area of Skills and Qualifications can be understood as a citizen and business friendly EU area where the skills and qualifications are easily compared and recognised. The aim of building this area is directly connected with enhancing personal development of learners, and thus the development and mobility of the European society, as well as strengthening the EU Single Market. The EU has developed a number of instruments designed to facilitate the mobility of Europeans (some of them are: the Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC), the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), Europass, European credit transfer systems (ECTS and ECVET), the multilingual classification of European Skills/Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO)).
It is not easy to assess how coherent the EU institutions have been when recommending all the lifelong learning and qualification policy instruments to the Member States and to what extent those instruments have facilitated the European mobility and contributed to the concept of building the European Area of Skills and Qualifications. Calendini and Storai (2002)[i] indicate that the difficulties in the mutual recognition of qualifications by the Member States do not stem from the technical or methodological difficulties, but are associated with differences between the European societies and the differences between various national approaches. They describe concept of the European market for qualifications as problematic one and unlikely to become a reality, because of the weaknesses of the plans for harmonization of national education sectors. Moreover, Calendini and Storai argue that the construction of a coherent system of qualifications is complicated, because of many organizations with conflicting interests and different classifications. The only available tool of action in the opinion of the authors is a consensus on a level of a common European definition of qualifications.
In the light of the ongoing reforms of the European qualifications systems and the European strategies for education and skills, the question on the EU ability to build an internal European Area of Skills and Qualifications remains unanswered. It is worth asking the question about the compatibility of the EU instruments impact on the construction of a European Area of Skills and Qualifications. The other question mark concerns the possibility to build the European area of skills and qualifications, taking into account the differences between the education systems, methods of training and quality assurance systems.
Economic changes in Europe and the needs of the labour market will certainly play a significant role when looking for the answers. For the time being I echo Calendini and Storai opinion that solutions concerning the skills and qualifications in various countries will more or less vary. Close cooperation with the social partners, trade unions, education and business sector actors need to be conducted both on the level of the EU and Member States. The well-functioning common area of skills and qualifications cannot be achieved by implementation of the EU directive or regulation; to be successful it needs cooperation among stakeholders.
Marta Ponikowska is an analyst at the Educational Research Institute, Warsaw, Poland. Her research focusses on Law and Education.
[i] J.B. Calendini and C. Storai, ‘Vocational qualifications and the European labour market: the challenges and the prospects’, The Economics of Harmonizing European Law, 2002
This post was initially published on Europe of Knowledge blog.
Integrating Social Sciences and Humanities in Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges: Will it work?
Thomas König and Katja Mayer
Reports from various parts of Europe confirm urgency of the topics put forward by the conference “Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities” held last week 23-24 September 2013 in Vilnius under the Lithuanian EU Presidency. On twitter alone, the conference hashtag #horizonsSSH was used more than 600 times. The conference was widely covered in traditional and new media (see Guardian, Der Standard, Liberation, lzinios, Net4Society, Research Europe, Science Guide and Hypothèses). In preparation for the conference, a number of stakeholder organizations such as the League of European Research Universities LERU and Science Europe published dedicated reports on contribution of social sciences and humanities (SSH) to solving societal challenges.
The conference highlighted once more that world-class European SSH are indispensable in generating knowledge about the dynamic changes that transform our societies. They form the basis of the Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges Pillar and their integration with other sciences will broaden our understanding of innovation, driven not only by technological advances, but also by societal expectations, values and demands. The Vilnius Declaration nicely elaborates crucial principles that form the basis for the integration of the SSH in Horizon 2020: defining research problems in novel ways; carefully considering the working conditions of all research partners and setting up efficient collaboration across different disciplines and research fields; fostering interdisciplinary training and research; and connecting social values and research evaluation.
However, such principles also reveal some concerns. One is, that the rhetoric of “integrating” the SSH into the “Societal Challenges”, predefined by European Commission (EC), European Council and the European Parliament, is not (yet?) matched by the institutional means to realize this goal. The Commissioner, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, as well as General Director Robert-Jan Smits both emphasized their good will; but the EC Directorate General (DG) Research and Innovation alone consists of many levels of decision-making (and there are also several other DGs involved). It turned out also that, in many respects, the course of Horizon 2020 is already set for the upcoming two years, without any real change to the procedures or the group of persons involved.
Considering those facts, it became very clear during the conference that “integrating SSH”, despite being a noble goal, is also a risky undertaking. It is rhetorically attractive to policy makers, while its success depends on two crucial aspects. One is the permissiveness of the responsible units within the European Commission that are tasked to carry out the program. This often breaks down to personalities. We may expect very different results from different EC bureaucratic units (i.e., concerning different challenges), pending on the willingness to really integrate representatives of the SSH communities. The other is the persistence of getting involved by people who represent those SSH communities. Continued representation requires structures and people with authority to speak for the communities. Currently, there is neither a robust structure established at European level, nor are there people in view who would preside over such a structure.
After the conference, the question “what follows?” is more crucial than anything else. The Vilnius Declaration is clearly a sign to policy makers that the SSH communities are ready to take up the challenge. But the lack of structural and ideational premises makes it difficult to plan and design contributions. The conference report – currently under preparation and expected to be published in December 2013 – will point out upcoming tasks and the willingness to take up and implement those tasks. From a researcher’s perspective, of course, what is happening right now is thrilling: Can a large, but diversely organized and widely under-informed field such as SSH come at grips with research policy in relatively short time? Will community based efforts to represent SSH lead to emergence of new structures (or revival of existing ones) in order to take action? Does integration remain superficial policy rhetoric (the “ritualisation trap”), or can real change be achieved? The next weeks, months and years will tell. However the message still echoing from the conference is clear: “Take the lead.”
Conference Website
Twitter hashtag: #horizonsSSH
Coming Events: “Achieving Impact: Socio-Economic Sciences and Humanities in Horizon 2020” Feb 26-27, 2014, Athens, Greece
Dr. Thomas König and Dr. Katja Mayer are assistants to the Conference Steering Committee.
This post was originally published on “Europe of Knowledge” blog.
Can regions shape university performance?
Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo
During the last twenty years researchers and policymakers have focused their discourses on the important role that universities play in stimulating the development of regions under the umbrella concept of “knowledge economies” [i]. Universities contribute to the region generating research and consultancy income, embedding knowledge in students and employees, upgrading regional business environments and potentially improving this process of regional value capture [ii]. This approach has emphasized the vision of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as active drivers of regional economic growth and innovation policy change.
To fulfill these expectations universities have embarked on many activities, which have increased their complexity and the necessity to redefine their roles. At regional level, HEIs do not only contribute to creation of skilled human capital, but also generate technological capital and knowledge stock. This conjecture promotes university involvement in regional economic development in addition to the traditional tripartite missions of teaching, research and transfer activities. But, is the expectation of universities engaging in all of these roles simultaneously realistic? Should the ‘one-size-fits-all’ model be prevalent in the Higher Education Sector, even more in times of economic crisis? More specifically, are there any differences between particular capabilities universities seek to contribute to their regions? Is there space for alternative university models?
To solve these questions it is important to ‘turn the tables’ and adopt an alternative perspective where not only university influences the region, but where regions shape university performance as well [iii]. This means that activities of universities are significantly influenced by the context and the environment in which the university is geographically located and by other actors involved in the innovation system. Adopting this view, we are assuming that if universities want to fulfill their roles, they need to increase their interaction with non-academic agents at regional level. This allows the university to build its own strategy of differentiation and specialization based on its specific capacities as well as taking into account the needs of the environment. Following the notation of the European Commission, we propose that this allows HEIs to create their own Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) and become drivers of innovation policy change and economic growth under the Europe 2020 Strategy. Even more important is the adaptation of different policies to emphasize the role of universities and their strategic priorities at regional level.
But is there any case where a region has shaped university’s strategy? We are going to present the case of the Mondragon University (MU) as an example where the university has exploited the characteristics of the environment as a competitive advantage to emphasize its specific regional role. MU is a cooperative university, that is, an autonomous association for voluntary cooperation with a view to preserve values such as self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity. It is located in Guipúzcoa, one of the three regions in the Basque Country (Spain). Founded in 1997, it is part of one of the largest cooperative groups, called Mondragon Corporation. MU was born from the demand side: to address the weaknesses of Mondragon Cooperative Model.
Under the specific characteristics of the Basque Science and Technology policy, the contribution of MU to its regional innovation system has been mainly through skilled workers with high levels of labor market participation and employment with the right qualifications, as well as through life-long education courses up-skilling employees for new tasks at the cooperatives [iv]. The development of research highly oriented to companies’ needs allows MU to have a large number of research collaborative programs with different firms operating in the Basque Country. The development of this strategy takes into account other agents in the innovation system and ensures interaction activities. MU framework for action is agreed with all the agents involved in order to respond to the challenges and needs of the environment concerning education and knowledge transfer [v].
Recent news articles [vi, vii] pointed out the case of MU as an alternative to the state-funded public university. But is this case exportable outside the socioeconomic characteristics and the historical background of the Basque context? Is the case of Silicon Valley in San Francisco or the MIT in Massachusetts transferable? Mondragon can be understood as an example of regional needs guiding a specialization strategy, and the university becoming active actor contributing to its region.
Thus, this approach creates a virtuous circle where universities are understood as drivers of innovation policy change and, at the same time, regional innovation policy guides university’s strategy for specialization.
Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo is a PhD student at INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) in Spain. More information on her research can be found here and here.
The first draft of this work was presented at the workshop ‘Regional Innovation Policy Dynamics: Actors, Agency and Learning’ in Manchester (UK), 23-24 September 2013.
SELECTED REFERENCES
[i] OECD (2007). Higher Education and Regions. Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged. OECD. Paris.
[ii] Benneworth, P. & Hospers, G. (2007). “The new economic geography of old industrial regions: universities as global- local pipelines” Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 25(5), pp. 779-802.
[iii] Casper, S. (2013). “The spill-over theory reversed: The impact of regional economies on the commercialization of university science” Research Policy, 42(8), pp. 1313-1324.
[iv] OECD (2011). OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation: Basque Country, Spain.
[v] Wright, S.; Greenwood, D. & Boden, R. (2011). “Report on a fi eld visit to Mondragón University: a cooperative experience/experiment”. Learning and Teaching, 4(3), pp. 38-56.
[vi] Tremlett, G. (2013). “Mondragon: Spain’s giant co-operative where times are hard but few go bust”. The Guardian 7 March 2013.
[vii] Matthews, D. (2013). “Inside a cooperative university”. The Higher Education Debate 29 August 2013.
This post was originally published on Europe of Knowledge blog.
The Science and Research Factor: Policy Deficit in Australia or a Failure to Articulate Impact?
Éidín O’Shea
What does allocation of cabinet portfolios tell us about the priorities of the government (and society)? An opportunity to reflect on the need for a science minister is provided by a new Australian government, where such portfolio does not exist.
This week a new Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his cabinet were sworn in with the promise of instant action. When Abbott announced his new cabinet and ministerial line-up no one was given specific responsibility for science. Higher education, science, and research will now be divided under two portfolios (Education and Industry). In every government since 1931 (bar from 1963-1966) Australia has had a minister with the word ‘science’ or ‘scientific’ in the title. This shift by Tony Abbott has been criticised even within the Liberal party as a source of ‘confusion’. Catriona Jackson, the CEO of Science and Technology Australia, stressed science and technology was central to everything government did “from industry, to health to creating the sort of jobs that are key to ensuring a prosperous future for the country”. “It seems inconceivable that we do not have a minister of Parliament that is responsible for the sciences,” she said.
The omission points to a greater inability by universities in Australia to clearly articulate their contribution to science and society and an uncertain policy and practice environment to support it.
Aligning with global shifts ambitious expectations have been set out by the Commonwealth government on the role of Australian universities with an explicit focus on increased collaborations between the public and private sectors. In addition to this national focus for knowledge exchange, a recent federal government publication in 2012, Australia in the Asian Century, also charges universities with expanding links and partnerships with Asia and with the ambitious challenge of having 10 top universities in the world’s top 100 rankings.
However in the face of these expectations, Australia currently ranks 22nd out of 28 OECD countries for public expenditure on tertiary education, spending only 1% of GDP. Further constraining any response to these expectations, in April 2013 the Australian Commonwealth government announced the biggest reductions in funding to the university system and student support since 1996, with an additional $2.3 billion to be stripped from the university system over the next four years, including almost $1billion from university revenue.
This policy deficit has resulted in a practice environment within universities which is characterised by a lack of engagement, project management and collaboration skills, and the limited motivation of researchers to engage in collaborative knowledge exchange processes. This is in sharp contrast to the European Commission ‘modernisation agenda’ for university reform defining the role of universities as to exploit the so-called ‘knowledge triangle of research, education and innovation’ (eg the Lund Declaration, 2009). Funding streams to support this agenda are emerging and the European Commission will soon launch Horizon 2020. This funding instrument (2014-2020), with an €80 billion budget, aims to deepen the relationship between science and society by favouring an ‘… informed engagement of citizens and civil society on research and innovation matters’.
Ernst & Young recently argued that Australian universities are on the cusp of profound change, warning that universities will not survive the next 10 to 15 years unless they radically overhaul their current operating models. They cite five drivers of change, including both ‘democratisation of knowledge’, and ‘access to and integration with industry’. Their observations reinforce the argument that, in today’s competitive market place, the viability and sustainability of much Australian business heavily relies on the strong and genuine relationships developed through a diverse range of university initiatives.
Overall Australian universities have not been successful in articulating their impact to the broader community or to government. It is clear that universities need to be internally adaptive in order to be externally responsive. However, without national policy direction and appropriate support, the current university business model, already under pressure from government cutbacks, is unlikely to be able to respond to this agenda in any resource intensive manner.
Dr Éidín O’Shea, Postdoctoral Research Fellow (Regional Community Development), Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development, University of Southern Queensland
This blog initially was published on “Europe of Knowledge” blog at “Ideas on Europe” blog platform.
State-University Relationships at Times of Crisis
Tatiana Fumasoli
An enduring tension in systemic integration in public sector governance has featured the relations between state and its agencies and organizations devoted to specific tasks. Thus periods of greater leeway to sub-systemic organizational autonomy have intertwined with periods of contraction and stronger central control, and vice versa. A recent example is the wave of so-called post New Public Management reforms that have followed NPM reforms. The rationale underpinning NPM reforms has been granting increasing autonomy to agencies and organizations in order for them to become strategic actors in a quasi-market. However, as such reforms have not produced the desired outcomes –coordination through competition – states have re-introduced more control, for instance by establishing accountability systems.
In a similar way the university sector has undergone major changes in coordination modes and systemic governance over the last decades. However dynamics of change in the university sector can be considered unique. On the one hand the university is an institution that is an organization with intrinsic values and norms historically recognized by society; on the other hand EU has focused on universities as major actors in the construction of the Europe of Knowledge. Hence the question “how do reforms play out when it comes to university structures, cultures and values embedded in national and European systems?” has been addressed both at the European Consortium for Political Research ECPR general conference in Bordeaux, France, in the panel “State-university relationships at times of crisis” within the “Europe of Knowledge” section and at the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers CHER general annual conference in Lausanne, Switzerland.
Investigating the implications of the changing university governance for system integration, Fumasoli, Gornitzka and Maassen at ECPR propose four perspectives based on Olsen’s steering models (1988) as analytical devices. Centralized integration implies a core function for the state, which organizes hierarchically the delegation of tasks to subordinate agencies and organizations. Negotiated integration is the result of power dynamics whereby different groups bargain their role and position. Competitive integration is based on market forces and implies an evolutionary perspective through variation, selection and retention. Institutional integration sees adaptation by the different components of the system through learning processes based on the principle of appropriateness. In the framework of the European Flagship Universities project, funded by the Research Council of Norway and coordinated by ARENA, the preliminary findings on eleven European flagship universities show that the impact of reforms depends on how these match with and are absorbed by existing cultures, practices and institutional identities. Against this backdrop universities emerge as major actors in systemic governance: they connect with both national and European levels testing their own remit and room to manoeuver. At the same time research groups display strategic agency and pursue their own interests not necessarily aligning to European and national policy goals.
Exploring the impact of European policies and instruments within Norwegian universities in the construction of European Research Area (ERA), Fumasoli at CHER reported how this has been historically fragmented, based on non-legal instruments and voluntary participation as well as framed by path dependency at national, university and disciplinary levels. Nevertheless some degree of integration can be detected as ERA has become part of the European agenda, displaying capacity for pursuing integrative agendas (e.g. European Higher Education Area EHEA). More recently supranational institution building has taken place with the construction of the European Research Council (ERC) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). Last but not least, structural adaptations within universities can be detected as an attempt to cope with European funding instruments (support units for handling applications to, management of European projects as well as incentives to successful applicants, see also Langfeldt, Gødo, Gornitzka and Kaloudis 2012).
Elite professors – coordinating European projects and grants – emerge: they are able to determine research priorities, they are allocated increasing material and symbolic resources by institutional leadership and they can negotiate their teaching load. Competing logics are at play: an academic logic balancing teaching and research missions, a competitive logic awarding high performers and a strategic logic where academic leaders try to comply with broader organizational goals. These dynamics at the shop floor level have relevant implications for European integration: the density and intensity of linkages to the EU is affected by academics (senior professors leading research groups) and by the extent to which these are willing to participate in European projects. Along this line interdependence and structural connectedness among the components of the system are still loose and potentially idiosyncratic, as they also depend on individuals and on shifting research interests, groups and activities. At the same time EU policies and instruments (ERC in particular) contribute to the diffusion of new values and norms within universities: the competitive rationale is penetrating the shop floor and challenging the traditional egalitarian principle of Norwegian society.
Persson at ECPR discussed the topic of institutional autonomy focusing on the relation between universities and national funding agencies in Sweden. He analyzed how reforms granting institutional autonomy to universities have affected the traditional work of such agencies: formally policy driven, but substantially performing (i.e. distributing funds) according to scientific criteria, funding agencies have to cope with renewed political interest and the emerging strategic objectives of universities.
Distinctive national cases were presented at ECPR in the broader context of Europe and its call for efficient, effective, competitive higher education systems. Moscati and Vaira presented the Italian case accounting for fragmented and contradictory stop-and-go reforms of a centralized system over the last 20 years. Udrescu explained the difficulties of achieving a balance between university autonomy and state control in post-communist countries (Romania). Finally Degn and Sørensen depicted Denmark as a case of “successful” reforms, where in the last ten years the national system has transformed universities according to NPM principles and successively established external control institutions.
The papers presented at ECPR and CHER show how universities and their sub-units have to be taken into consideration when analysing European integration processes. Past reforms have granted universities a higher degree of autonomy constructing them as strategic actors, able to play their own role in the system. Increased autonomy has had unintended outcomes: academics and their research groups are also able to pursue their own agenda, thus contributing to the complexity of systemic dynamics and integration processes.
Dr.Tatiana Fumasoli is a post-doctoral fellow at the ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Norway
References
Langfeldt, L., Godø, H. Gornitzka, Å. and Kaloudis, A. (2012) Integration modes in EU research: Centrifugality versus coordination of national research policies, Science and Public Policy, 39 (1), 88-98
Olsen, J. P. (1988) Statsstyre og institusjonsutforming. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
This entry was originally posted on “Europe of Knowledge” blog at the “Ideas on Europe” blog platform. It can be found here.
European Research Area CRN 