unacceptably long for the Framework Programme (not ERC).
} Satisfaction and characteristics
of funding
The majority of respondents report the grant application process to be often unnecessarily long. The major factor influencing the decision to apply for a grant is the total size of the grant, whereas the primary reasons for not applying vary with respect to the grant’s source. The ERC and other Framework Programme grants display very low success probabilities and have excessively high procedural and logistical costs. The lack of confidence in the evaluation procedure plagues instead the national public funding schemes in most European Research Area countries. As for the characteristics of the grants on offer, the respondents deem that the Framework Programme, other than ERC, has the least flexible structure, whereas grants from the ERC and from national institutions score more or less equally. The stability and predictability of calls and grants is fairly good for both the ERC and for the majority of national funding agencies. Less than half of respondents consider Framework Programme funding as sufficiently stable and predictable. Finally, roughly twice as many people as for either the ERC or national public research grants report that the time spent on applications is
18 Winter 2011
That the respondents from the majority of countries are dissatisfied with the Framework Programme was a somewhat expected result of the survey. Less so, that they are equally disappointed with the European Research Council. Nordic and UK scholars have a more negative opinion than researchers from other countries, such as Italy, Spain or Belgium. Regarding the ERC, low success rates seems a major explanation. Nonetheless, the Framework Programme (other than ERC) again scores lowest with respect to satisfaction conditional on success: even successful candidates are unhappy about the way the agency is run. Interestingly, researchers are relatively more satisfied with national public research agencies. Switzerland and Portugal show full satisfaction, followed by Germany, Spain and other countries. Italy is a major exception here, as the majority of respondents are disgruntled. Dissatisfaction is surprisingly high in the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands. There appears to be a positive correlation between the perception of management quality, and of trust in evaluation procedures. Countries with national agencies that are not well managed (Italy, France, Central and Eastern European countries) also exhibit higher mistrust in the evaluation process. Moreover, there might be also an inverse relation between satisfaction at national and European levels: where the performance of national agencies is unsatisfactory, European alternatives appear more palatable. Conclusions and future prospects Economists, sociologists, and political scientists agree on the four most desirable features of research
funding: flexibility, adequate funding, competent and transparent evaluation and the simplification of the application process. Hence, despite the advances by many funding agencies, there is ample room to improve their efficiency, in terms of flexibility— especially for the ERC and Framework Programme (not ERC)—and of competent evaluation, as the mistrust in the selection procedures is a major concern with the majority of national and regional research funding agencies. There is consensus in favour of a ‘competitive bottom-up approach’ to research funding among the respondents. Countries with schemes that ‘properly assess and trust the researcher’ are also the ones with a more internationally integrated research environment, such as the UK. Moreover, regarding the Framework Programme and the ERC, perceptions differ by country, but lack of flexibility of the FP (not ERC) is a major concern. Finally, as mentioned before, the survey does not reflect the recent developments in European research funding as a consequence of the on-going crisis. We will most certainly see substantial general cuts in research funding in the future, and since major funding institutions, such as the Framework Programme, have refocused their priorities on innovation, we can expect specific cuts in the SSH as well. n Igor Guardiancich completed his Ph.D. in the SPS Department in 2009.