Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Opening European Research to the World: Evidence from International Cooperation

  • Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt (a1)

Abstract

In recent years, the European Union (EU) has intensified efforts to open European research programmes to the world. This paper focuses on the opening of European research to the world by studying the case of the FP7 international cooperation programme. It is based on a mixed-methods approach including analyses of quantitative data, documents and interviews with programme participants, policymakers and other stakeholders involved in 131 EU projects worldwide. The paper identifies features specific to the European international research cooperation scheme and contributes to our understanding of the supranational intervention and its impact on European research integration. Policymakers can use this piece of evidence to formulate enhanced strategies and better design and target activities both within the EU and globally, to achieve stronger, long-lasting research outcomes and effects.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Arnold, E. (2012) Understanding long-term impacts of R&D funding: The EU framework programme. Research Evaluation, 21(5), pp. 332343.
2.BRICS countries are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
3. European Commission (2000) Towards a European Research Area. Brussels: COM (2000) 6 final.
4. Edler, J. (2003) How do economic ideas become relevant in RTD policy making? Lessons from a European case study. In Biegelbauer, P.S. and Borrás, S. (Eds), Innovation Policies in Europe and the US: The New Agenda (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing), pp. 253284.
5. Prange-Gstöhl, H. (Ed.) (2010) International Science and Technology Cooperation in a Globalised World: The External Dimension of the European Research Area (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)
6. Edler, J. and James, A.D. (2015) Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme. Research Policy, 44(6), pp. 12521265.
7. Krige, J. and Guzzetti, L. (Eds) (1997) History of European Scientific and Technological Cooperation (Luxembourg: Office of the Official Publication of the European Communities)
8. Peterson, J. (1995) EU research policy: The politics of expertise. In Rhodes, C., and Mazey, S., (Eds), The State of the European Union, Vol. 3: Building a European Polity? (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner), pp. 391412.
9. Grande, E. and Peschke, M. (1999) Transnational cooperation and policy networks in European science policy-making. Research Policy, 28(1), pp. 4361.
10. Citi, M. (2014) Revisiting creeping competences in the EU: The case of security R&D policy. Journal of European Integration, 36(2), pp. 135151.
11. Princen, S. (2007) Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), pp. 2138.
12.EAV is additional to the value created by actions of individual member states. It may result from different factors, e.g. coordination gains, legal certainty, greater effectiveness or complementarities. It reflects broader European relevance and significance of an action with a view of presenting models and mechanisms which can be applied not only regionally or nationally, but also EU-wide. See http://ec.europa.eu/chafea/documents/health/hp-factsheets/added-value/factsheets-hp-av_en.pdf.
13. Lavenex, S. and Schimmelfennig, F. (2009) EU rules beyond EU borders: Theorizing external governance in European Politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), pp. 791812.
14. Smith, M. (1996) The European Union and a changing Europe: Establishing the boundaries of order. Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1), pp. 528.
15. Mayntz, R. (2005) Governance Theory als fortenwickelte Steuerungsttheorie? In Schuppert, G.F. (Ed.), Governance-Forschung: Vergewisserung über Stand und Entwicklungslinien (Baden-Baden: Nomos), pp. 1120.
16.In this context, Mediterranean countries include Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia and Turkey.
17.Eastern Partnership countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine.
18. Abbott, K.W., Keohane, R.O., Moravcsik, A., Slaughter, A.-M. and Snidal, D. (2000) The concept of legalization. International Organization, 54(3), pp. 401419.
19. Lavenex, S., Lehmkuhl, D. and Wichmann, N. (2009) Modes of external governance: A cross-national and cross-sectoral comparison. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(6), pp. 813833.
20. Lavenex, S. (2004) EU external governance in ‘wider Europe’. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), pp. 680700.
21. Princen, S. (2011) Agenda-setting strategies in EU policy processes. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7), pp. 927943.
22. Rochefort, D.A. and Cobb, R.W. (Eds) (1994) The Politics of Problem Definition. Shaping the Policy Agenda (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas).
23. Vanhoonacker, S. and Pomorska, K. (2013) The European External Action Service and agenda-setting in European foreign policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(9), pp. 13161331.
24. Héritier, A. (2002) New modes of governance in Europe: Policy-making without legislating? In Héritier, A. (Ed.), Common Goods: Reinventing European and International Governance (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield), pp. 185206.
25. Tallberg, J. (2003) The agenda-shaping powers of EU Council presidency. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(7), pp. 19.
26. Kelly, B.D. (2008) The emerging mental health strategy of the European Union: A multi-level work-in-progress. Health Policy, 85(1), pp. 6070.
27. Delaney, D. and Leitner, H. (1997) The political construction of scale. Political Geography, 16(2), pp. 9397.
28. Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches, 2nd edn (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications).
29. Bloch, C., Sørensen, M.P., Graversen, E.K., Schneider, J.W., Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Aagaard, K. and Mejlgaard, N. (2014) Developing a methodology to assess the impact of research grant funding – a mixed methods approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 43, pp. 105117.
30. Leech, N.L. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009) A typology of mixed methods research design. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), pp. 265275.
31. European Commission (2001) The International Dimension of ERA, Brussels: COM (2001) 346 final.
32. Arnold, E., Clark, J. and Muscio, A. (2005) What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance. Science and Public Policy, 32(5), pp. 385397.
33. European Commission (2008) A Strategic European Framework for International Science and Technology Cooperation, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. Brussels: COM (2008) 588 final.
34. European Commission (2007) A new approach to International S&T Cooperation in the EU’s 7th Framework Programme (2007–2013). Brussels: SEC (2007) 47.
35.Industrialized countries are Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
36. Vullings, W., Arnold, E., Boekholt, P., Horvat, M., Mostert, B., and Rijnders, M.-Nagle (Eds) (2014) European Added-Value of EU Science, Technology and Innovation Actions and EU-Member State Partnership in International Cooperation (Brussels: European Commission).
37.The INCONET activity supported bi-regional coordination with strategic regions that are key to EU foreign policy and external relations, including Africa, Latin and Central America, the ASEAN group, the Arab Gulf, the Pacific, and the Western Balkans. Similarly, the BILAT activity reflected ongoing scientific and political priorities in the engagement with individual countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Ukraine and the United States). The ERAWIDE activity enlisted participation with the European neighbouring countries central to EU foreign policy.
38. Stephenson, P.J. (2012) Image and venue as factors mediating latent spillover pressure for agenda-setting change. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(6), pp. 796816.
39. European Commission (2012) A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth. Brussels: COM (2012) 392 final.
40. Royal Society (2010) New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy. Negotiating the Changing Balance of Power (London: Royal Society).
41. Hormats, R.D. (2012) Science diplomacy and twenty-first century statecraft. Science & Diplomacy, 1(1). www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-twenty-first-century-statecraft
42. Leshner, A. (2014) The partnership of scientists and diplomats. Science & Diplomacy, 3(4). www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2014/partnership-scientists-and-diplomats
43. Turekian, V.C. and Wang, T.C. (2014) Educating for science diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 3(1). www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2014/educating-for-science-diplomacy
44. Holt, R. (2015) Scientific drivers for diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 4(2). www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2015/scientific-drivers-for-diplomacy
45. Turekian, V.C. (2015) Evolving institutions for twenty-first century (science) diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 4(2). www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2015/evolving-institutions-for-twenty-first-century-science-diplomacy
46. Richardson, J.J. (1996) Policy-making in the EU: Interests, ideas and garbage cans of primeval soup. In Richardson, J.J. (Ed.), European Union, Power and Policy-Making (London: Routledge), pp. 323.
47. Borrás, S. (2009) The politics of the Lisbon Strategy: The changing role of the commission. West European Politics, 32(1), pp. 97118.
48. Bauer, M.W. (2008) Diffuse anxieties, deprived entrepreneurs: Commission reform and middle management. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(5), pp. 691707.
49. Fikkers, D.J. and Horvat, M. (Eds) (2014) Basic Principles for effective International Science, Technology and Innovation Agreements (Brussels: European Commission).
50. Rosamond, B. (2000) Theories of European Integration (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
51. Schimmelfennig, F. and Rittberger, B. (2006) Theories of European integration. Assumptions and hypotheses. In Richardson, J.J. (Ed.), European Union, Power and Policy-Making, 3rd edn (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 7495.
52. Richardson, J.J. (1994) EU water policy: Uncertain agendas, shifting networks and complex coalitions. Environmental Politics, 3(4), pp. 139167.
53. Radaelli, C.M. (1995) The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 2(2), pp. 159183.
54. Stephenson, P.J. (2010) Let’s get physical: The European Commission and cultivated spillover in completing the single market’s transport infrastructure. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(7), pp. 10391057.
55. Niemann, A. and Schmitter, P.C. (2009) Neofunctionalism. In Wiener, A., and Diez, T. (Eds), European Integration Theory, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 4566.
56. Bauer, M.W. (2006) Co-managing programme implementation: Conceptualizing the European Commission’s role in policy execution. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(5), pp. 717735.
57.DEVCO is the EC’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development responsible for designing European international cooperation and development policy and delivering aid.

Opening European Research to the World: Evidence from International Cooperation

  • Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed