Collaboration between different actors in research and innovation (R&I) activities has been a cornerstone of EU research policy, especially in the context of the research framework programmes (FP). In previous FPs, this... [ view full abstract ]
Collaboration between different actors in research and innovation (R&I) activities has been a cornerstone of EU research policy, especially in the context of the research framework programmes (FP). In previous FPs, this collaboration aspect has mainly focused on universities, research organisations and companies. Recent approaches, such as by Horizon 2020, call for also involving other societal actors, in particular civil society.
However, while the participation of universities, research organisations and companies in European R&I activities has already been well researched, the role of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) is largely unexplored. Against this background, our study aimed at answering the questions “To what extent did CSOs participate in FP6 and FP7?”, “In which roles, positions and thematic areas did they participate?”, and “How did they contribute to research and network performance?”. The methods applied comprise case studies, social network analysis and analysis of publication output and media presence. The main data source for the study was the European Commission’s E-CORDA database.
CSOs constitute a heterogeneous group of organisations concerning size, strategic orientation, business model or funding streams, which makes it challenging to clearly identify them in the FP6 and FP7 research networks. We therefore developed a typology distinguishing between different types of CSOs based on their target groups and funding sources.
The findings of our study reveal that CSOs have so far only played a marginal role: although they accounted for 6% of all participating organisations in FP7, they received only about 1% of the funding. Business-oriented CSOs made up a large proportion of these shares, while society-oriented CSOs accounted for less than 3% of organisations and received less than 0.5% of the funding.
CSO participation was not evenly spread across FP7. While they mainly participated in the “Capacities” programme, Health- and ICT-related research also constituted important funding sources for CSOs, due to the large budget allocated to these themes. In contrast, CSOs were practically absent from the more excellence- and technology-oriented parts of FP7, such as the ERC or nanotechnology research.
CSOs were largely characterised by nonrecurring participations, and showed the highest drop-out rate between FP6 and FP7. CSOs consequently did not occupy central positions in the FP networks. They were mainly located in the periphery and semi-periphery, did not build sub-clusters or bridge gaps, and did not have an important brokerage function. Removing CSOs from the FPs would have virtually no effect on network morphology. Similarly, CSOs did not contribute to research performance; on the contrary, we found a significant negative correlation between CSO participation and publication output.
This pattern of marginal CSO contribution to FP-funded projects can be explained by fundamentally different logics: while FPs are shaped by researchers, focusing on scientific excellence, and the business sector, focusing on profits and competiveness, CSOs follow a logic of societal impacts. They therefore find it difficult to link up with the highly competitive and excellence-driven logic of R&I. In addition, since CSOs usually act on a local or regional scale, they hardly gain added value from participating in EU-wide projects.
Keywords: Civil society organisations, EU framework programme, research impacts, network analysis
9c. Public participation, role of stakeholders
