Career Paths and Mobility of Researchers in
Europe
Proceedings of the conference
Early Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe:
Meeting the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice
Lisbon 2004
&
MCFA Contributions to the Career Programme
of the EuroScience Open Forum
Stockholm 2004
Edited by:
Toni Gabaldón
Hugo Horta
Dagmar M. Meyer
José B. Pereira-Leal
Published with the support of
April 2005
Foreword
It was with great pleasure that I accepted the invitation to write a Foreword to this volume stemming
from the two important events on European mobility issues held in 2004 under the auspices of the Marie Curie
Fellowship Association and a number of like-minded organizations active in the field.
The UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science in Europe, which I have the honour of heading, has, as its
prime task, the furtherance of international cooperation and capacity building in the natural sciences in Central
and Eastern Europe, and particularly – over the last few years – in South-Eastern Europe. Our current
programme is pursued within the framework of the Organization’s follow-up to the World Conference on
Science (Budapest 1999), which UNESCO sponsored. That Conference served to underline, through its final
documents, the absolute importance of the free and unhindered circulation of scientists, and the need for the
involving young researchers in any decision-making likely to have impact on their future careers. We
ourselves had very soon realized that any programme that sought to assist in the building of national and
regional capabilities in science and technology had, as a priority, to address issues concerning the mobilization
of scientists – and especially young scientists.
Europe is an exceptionally diverse region, and in order to take best advantage of that most precious of
all its assets, its human capital, we have to ensure that individuals from all parts of the European Research
Area are involved and are able to bring their own contribution to the scientific enterprise.
Science is an international endeavour; happily, it has always been that way. Progress in science has
always been brought about through interchange of ideas and methodologies. The free circulation of
information and people is central to this process, and this movement allows the scientific community to grow,
to extend and to develop itself. The facilitation of these processes is therefore close to the heart of numerous
organizations – UNESCO included.
A significant part of ROSTE’s annual programme is, in reality, concerned with support for the shortterm mobility of scientists from South East Europe, enabling them to attend and actively participate in a wide
range of conferences, workshops, training courses and Summer schools in the basic and applied sciences held
within the region.
This is not the place to catalogue all the activities – or the credentials if you like – of ROSTE in the
area of mobility. However, perhaps I can describe some of our more significant initiatives in this regard,
underlining as they do the Office’s commitment to greater and more even-handed mobility opportunities
within the region.
Underlying what we do in favour of the young scientific community is a conviction that all national
scientific communities within Europe, and those individuals making them up, should be assisted to play a part
as equals in the scientific life of the region: to help create a level playing field, and one that has no inbuilt
restrictions or obstacles. As but one example, let me recall that ROSTE intermediated the signature by SE
European countries of the Quality Charter with a view to their inclusion within the Pan-European Researchers
Mobility Portal created by the European Commission.
One cannot speak of mobility without making some reference to one of the persistent scourges of
South East Europe: brain drain, the one-way mobility route for many a young talent from the region. The
Office has sought to pilot solutions for providing better work conditions for scientists in South East Europe in
order to alleviate brain drain in the region, in cooperation with a private sector partner, Hewlett-Packard.
Entitled 'Piloting Solutions for Alleviating Brain Drain in South East Europe', the initiative has involved seven
beneficiary universities from five Balkan countries. The joint project is part of UNESCO’s Strategy for
Strengthening Cooperation within South East Europe and one of the priorities of its programme in higher
education. Its objective is to enable scientists from the region to interact with the international scientific
community around the world, and especially their fellow nationals who have left to work abroad, by
harnessing the power of grid computing. Through this pilot project UNESCO and HP intend to demonstrate
how technology can contribute to scientific cooperation and turn brain-drain into brain-gain.
1
Last, but by no means least, ROSTE has also provided support to young scientists from Central and
SE European countries to enable them to participate in major European events and projects related to the
career of researchers. Thus, we enabled 24 young scientists to participate in the European conference ‘Early
Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe - Meeting the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice’ held in Lisbon,
Portugal on 25-27 February 2004 which set itself the task of promoting good practice at all levels regarding
the facilitation of mobility of young researchers, especially during PhD training, and providing a forum for the
exchange of experience and discussions on how to overcome existing obstacles. This volume, which stems
directly from the Portugal event, via the workshops held in the framework of the Euroscience Open Forum
2004 in Stockholm in August of that year (which we were also pleased to be able to support), bears witness to
the success of that objective.
I congratulate the organizers of those events, and the editors of this proceedings volume, for having
brought together such a variety of presentations and reports on national situations. The book will, I feel sure,
prove to be an invaluable source of information for all those with an interest in furthering the movement of
scientific talent within the European research area taken in its widest sense.
Howard Moore
Director
UNESCO Office in Venice
Regional Bureau for Science in Europe (ROSTE)
2
Table of contents
FOREWORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
3
5
ORGANISATION AND SPONSORS
9
ORGANISING TEAM FOR ESRM 2004
ORGANISING TEAM FOR THE MCFA EVENTS AT ESOF 2004
SPONSORS OF ESRM2004
SPONSORS OF THE MCFA EVENTS AT ESOF2004
10
11
13
14
EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION
15
INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS:
A STUDY ON BRAIN DRAIN AND OBSTACLES TO MOBILITY
Sveva Avveduto
RESEARCHER MOBILITY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES
Magda Lola
A EUROPEAN MONITORING SYSTEM ON RESEARCHERS AND RESEARCH PERSONNEL
Paola Di Pietrogiacomo, Olivier Da Costa
THE POSTDOCTORAL TRAP: A CHALLENGE FOR SCIENCE AND POLICY
Guntram Bauer
GOVERNANCE OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS' ASSOCIATIONS:
THE WORLD ACADEMY OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS
Péter Kerey, Martin Naef
EUROPEAN EMPLOYMENT MARKET FOR RESEARCHERS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES,
16
21
29
34
40
45
SOME ACHIEVEMENTS AND NEW INSTRUMENTS
Sigi Gruber
PROMOTING BEST PRACTICE
Enrico Piazza
ATTRACTION AND RETENTION OF SKILLED SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS AND TECHNOLOGISTS: AN
AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE
Fiona Wood
TRANSPARENCY, QUALITY AND LEGAL RIGHTS - ACADEMIC CAREERS IN AN OPEN SOCIETY
Christoph Bargholtz
EUROPEAN CASE STUDIES
50
55
63
67
MOBILITY OF STUDENTS FROM THE WESTERN BALKANS TO
NEW EU MEMBERS IN EASTERN EUROPE
Biljana Zikic
OBSTACLES TO MOBILITY AFFECTING EARLY STAGE RESEARCHERS FROM THE
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Dragos Postolache
YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN LATVIA: PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES IN THE CONTEXT
68
72
76
OF A COMMON AREA OF RESEARCH
Inese Sviestina
HUMAN RESOURCES IN FOCUS - MOBILITY OBSTACLES AND INITIATIVES
Kaili Kaseorg
THE MOBILITY OF SCIENTISTS AND ‘BEST PRACTICES’ OR:
“THE WRONG ANSWERS TO THE WRONG QUESTIONS?”
David M. Hoffman
3
81
86
EUROPEAN RESEARCHERS’ MOBILITY: THE ITALIAN CASE
M. Carolina Brandi, Loredana Cerbara
THE GREEK RESEARCHERS’ MOBILITY CENTRES NETWORK: PYTHEAS PROJECT
Dimitrios Sanopoulos
THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION IN POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH TRAINING:
THE CASE OF NORDIC AND BALTIC COUNTRIES
Aira Lepik, Merle Pihlak
EXPLOITATION OF ACADEMIC CAPITAL - RESEARCHERS AND THE “SPILLOVER EFFECT”
Irena Kuzmanoska
RESEARCH AND MOBILITY IN HUNGARY: STARTING OUT AND GETTING ON
Marta Maczel, Maria Harsanyi, Peter Kerey
A NOVEL HIRING PROGRAMME FOR SCIENTISTS IN SPAIN:
THE RAMÓN Y CAJAL PROGRAMME
Juan de la Figuera
JUNIOR FACULTY AT KAROLINSKA INSTITUTET
Marie Wahren Herlenius, Anna Persson, Judit Wefer
THE PHD STUDENTS OF THE ITALIAN-FRENCH UNIVERSITY FROM 1998 TO 2003
Luisella Romano
LIVING SCIENCE ON THE RIM BETWEEN MOBILITY AND STABILITY
Mihaela Gheorghiu, Eugen Gheorghiu
YOUNG RESEARCHERS IN ROMANIA – SURVIVAL AND HOPE
Crina Cismas, Razvan Florian
MOBILITY AND ACADEMIC CAREER: REFORMING THE ‘INBREEDING’
SYSTEM IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
Agnieszka Majcher
98
115
115
120
126
133
136
142
150
153
158
RECOMMENDATIONS
161
MOBILITY
RESEARCH CAREERS
TRAINING
GOVERNANCE
162
163
164
164
ANNEXES
165
DETAILED PROGRAMME OF ESRM2004
DETAILED PROGRAMME OF THE THREE MCFA EVENTS AT ESOF2004
166
173
4
Introduction
Mobility has become an indispensable element in the career trajectory of researchers in almost any
discipline, especially of those who are still at an early stage in their career. Working temporarily at another
institution and in a different research environment can have a very positive effect on a researchers'
professional development, and this applies both to a move in the geographical sense and with regard to
employment sector. Geographical mobility of researchers within Europe is vital for the creation of a common
European research identity. It is essential for the development and transfer of research competencies and the
promotion of scientific excellence. Researcher mobility is therefore decisive for the establishment of a
European Research Area and should be promoted already at an early stage. However, despite important
improvements that have been made over the last few years, researchers still have to struggle with a whole
number of obstacles when they decide to move to another country, or between public and private sectors.
Younger researchers who do not yet have the experience and the contacts that their more senior colleagues can
rely on are particularly affected by these hindrances.
Policy makers across Europe agree that careers in science and research need to become more
attractive in order to be able to achieve the ambitious goals of the Lisbon strategy, namely “to make Europe
the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world, with more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion”. Over the last couple of years a whole number of initiatives have been launched at European level
in order to improve the framework conditions for researchers in Europe and to provide them with better career
prospects. The European Commission has launched an ambitious mobility and career strategy aimed at
making Europe more attractive for research talent from all over the world. However, implementation of the
associated measures at the level of Member States is advancing only rather slowly, with some countries
clearly lagging behind.
Alerted and encouraged by its younger members who have personally experienced serious obstacles
to mobility during their PhD training, the association Euroscience, a transdisciplinary grassroots organisation
of individual researchers from both the public and the private sector, initiated the project “Doctoral Student
Mobility in Europe” back in 2001. Soon after its conception this project was joined by the Marie Curie
Fellowship Association (MCFA), the representative body for all former and current holders of a Marie Curie
fellowship or other European Community-funded research training grant involving mobility. The initial idea
of the project was to create a special “Best Practice Award” to be bestowed upon institutions or networks,
honouring outstanding and original contributions towards significant progress in the mobility of European
researchers at doctoral level. The Award was intended to be purely symbolic without any monetary prize
associated to it. Nevertheless, the organisation of such an award requires financial means, and a proposal for
funding was submitted to the European Commission as an “Accompanying Measure” within the Human
Potential and Mobility Programme “Improving Human Potential and the Socio-Economic Knowledge Base”
in 2001. Unfortunately it was not accepted for funding, and the Award project had to be put on ice for some
time.
However, some of the people who had been involved in the project since the beginning were not that
easily discouraged and in late 2002 decided to give it a second try, with a slightly different approach. In
particular, the organisers abandoned the idea of creating a special “Best Practice Award” as a means of
directing the public's attention to the issue of researcher mobility and the obstacles that especially young
researchers have to overcome in this context. Instead, it was decided that a big European conference should be
organised, where examples of good practice would be presented to a broad audience including researchers,
policy makers, representatives of funding bodies, research administrators, as well as media representatives. In
order to make sure that the views of young researchers at PhD level would be adequately represented, two
more organisations were invited to join the project: the European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior
Researchers (Eurodoc) as well as the Postgraduates International network (PI-net), both of them federations of
national organisations of junior researchers.
This is how the first of the two events covered by these proceedings came about: the conference
“Early Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe: Meeting the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice
(ESRM2004)” took place on 25-27 February 2004 on the beautiful premises of the Gulbenkian Foundation in
Lisbon. The conference attracted close to 180 participants from 41 countries, including such far-away places
as Japan, Taiwan or the United States. Thanks to the generous support by a whole number of organisations
5
and foundations a very encouraging number of young researchers from all over Europe, especially also the
Eastern European countries, had the opportunity to actively contribute to the event. During the two and a half
days of the conference participants had the chance to discuss topics such as the social dimension of researcher
mobility, mobility related gender and family issues, or the influence of the cultural framework on early stage
mobility. Four keynote speakers from the worlds of research and science policy provided the frame of the
conference, and the 15 invited plenary speakers covered a very large variety of topics. Many of them
presented examples of good practice from across Europe, both from the side of official authorities such as
national ministries or the European Commission and from the side of individual institutions or funding
organisations. In the discussions following these talks participants enjoyed the opportunity to exchange their
views on mobility and research careers in general, and to lay the foundations for future collaborations with
colleagues from other countries. Six parallel workshops on specific subjects gave further opportunity for indepth discussions.
The second event on which the present proceedings are based was the Career Programme within the
Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF2004) in Stockholm in August 2004, or more precisely the part of the ESOF
Career Programme that was organised by the Marie Curie Fellowship Association: a session on “Governance
of Young Scientist Associations” (organised jointly with the World Academy of Young Scientists – WAYS),
a one-day symposium on “Mobility of Researchers in Europe and Beyond”, and a one-day workshop on
“Scientific Careers in Europe”. Many of the topics that had been at the centre of the debate in Lisbon were
taken up again in Stockholm and were analysed in more detail, taking into account the developments that had
taken place in the six months that had passed since the first conference. This close relation between the ESOF
Career Programme in Stockholm and the ESRM conference in Lisbon was also reflected in the fact that
ESRM2004 had been declared an official satellite event to ESOF2004. However, while the Lisbon conference
had been focused very strongly on issues directly related to the mobility of early career researchers, the
MCFA events at ESOF2004 had a broader scope and looked at more general issues related to the career paths
of researchers in Europe.
Both the mobility conference in Lisbon and the MCFA events in Stockholm included special sessions
focussing on the situation of young researchers in Eastern Europe and mobility between the western and the
eastern parts of Europe. There were two reasons for organising these sessions: First of all, the organisers
wanted to give a special acknowledgement to the fact that Europe is a very heterogeneous place and that the
challenges encountered by young researchers in countries like Ireland or Sweden on the one hand and
Romania or Turkey on the other are not at all the same. All too often the debate on researcher careers in
Europe is dominated by a very western point of view, although with the EU enlargement this is now slowly
changing. Secondly, the idea of these sessions was also to foster the dialogue between researchers (and
especially between young researchers) from East and West, and to encourage younger participants from
Eastern European countries to relate their own experiences to their peers from western countries, in order to
learn from each other and perhaps also create a certain curiosity for each other. This dialogue was made
possible through the generous sponsorship by the UNESCO Regional Office for Science in Europe (ROSTE),
which allowed for the invitation of about 25 young researchers from Eastern and South Eastern Europe to
each of the events. The organisers would like to extend their sincere gratitude to UNESCO-ROSTE for this
special support without which a lot of very stimulating discussions at the two conferences would not have
taken place.
Special thanks are also due to the Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian which not only provided the venue
and the conference facilities for ESRM2004 but also offered much appreciated technical support during the
event. Indispensable help with the logistics of the planning as well as other sponsorship in kind were offered
by the Centre for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, Instituto Superior Técnico, in Lisbon. Local
support for the organisation was also received by the Associação dos Bolseiros de Investigação Científica, the
Portuguese member organisation of Eurodoc.
The organisers would like to thank all sponsors and supporters who have contributed to the success of
the project. Apart from UNESCO-ROSTE the main sponsors of the Lisbon conference were the Stifterverband
für die deutsche Wissenschaft (Donors' Association for the Promotion of Sciences and the Humanities in
Germany) and the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation). Sponsorship was
also received from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Science and Technology
Foundation), GlaxoSmithKline and Unilever Netherlands, as well as the British Council in Lisbon. The
MCFA contribution to the ESOF Career Programme was made possible through a grant that the Marie Curie
Fellowship Association had received from the European Commission in the framework of a Specific Support
6
Action (contract number SAS6-CT-2003-510152). The MCFA also gratefully acknowledges the unbureacratic
financial support that was offered for the Stockholm events by the Stifterverband für die deutsche
Wissenschaft.
Finally, a great number of individuals and organisations supported the project in many different ways.
While it is impossible to mention all of them, a special “thank you” goes to Françoise Praderie, Honorary Vice
President of Euroscience and one of the initiators of the whole project, for her enthusiasm and optimism, as
well as to Raymond Seltz, Secretary General of Euroscience, for a lot of help “behind the scenes”. Both
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (German Research Foundation) and Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service) as well as Slovenska znanstvena fundacija
(Slovene Science Foundation) provided travel grants to young researchers to attend the Lisbon conference,
and the European Molecular Biology Organisation EMBO offered the conference bags for ESRM2004. Many
other organisations including the European University Association EUA, the European Liaison Office of the
German Research Organisations in Brussels KoWi, the Embark Initiative of the Irish Research Council for
Science, Engineering and Technology IRCSET, the European Association of Research Managers and
Administrators EARMA and the National Science Foundation supported the project through dissemination of
information and in many other ways.
April 2005
Dagmar M. Meyer
on behalf of the editorial team
7
8
Organisation and sponsors
9
Organising team for ESRM 2004
Early stage Researcher Mobility in Europe: Meeting the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice
http://www.mariecurie.org/esrm2004/
Jointly organized by:
http://www.eurodoc.net/
http://www.mariecurie.org/
http://www.postgrad.org/
http://www.euroscience.org/
Steering Committee
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dagmar M. Meyer (Chair) (MCFA Chair and Euroscience)
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc, Coordinator of Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Christine Heller del Riego (EuroScience Governing Board and MCFA)
Benedikt Hoffmann (Euroscience)
Hugo Duarte Alves Horta (Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, Lisbon)
José B. Pereira-Leal (Board Member of Science for Development and MRC-Laboratory of Molecular
Biology)
Enrico Piazza (President of Post-graduates international PI-net)
10
Organising team for the MCFA events at ESOF 2004
MCFA Events During ESOF 2004
EuroScience Open Forum Careers Programme
www.esof2004.org
The EuroScience Open Forum 2004 (ESOF2004) was initiated by EuroScience, the main organiser of the
event. The Marie Curie Fellowship Association contributed to the ESOF Careers Programme with three
events.
http://www.mariecurie.org/
The workshop “Governance of Young Scientists Organisations” was jointly organized with the World
Academy of Young Scientists.
http://www.waysnet.org/
The session on “Mobility of Early Stage Researchers in Europe” within the MCFA Mobility Symposium was
jointly organised with the European University Association (EUA).
Steering Committee
Overall Coordination:
•
•
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair and EuroScience)
Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Governing Board and MCFA)
MCFA Mobility Symposium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Louise Ackers (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, Leeds University, UK)
Sandra Bitusikova (European University Association)
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc, Coordinator of Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Bryony Gill (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe,Leeds University, UK)
Snezana Krstic (University of Belgrade/ Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair and Euroscience)
Jaroslav Mysiak (MCFA Administrative Board)
Piotr Swiatek (ESF Cost Office Brussels)
Fiona Wood (ARMS - Australasian Research Management Society)
11
MCFA Careers Workshop
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc, Coordinator of Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Governing Board & MCFA)
Magda Lola (MCFA Administrative Board, Co-ordinator of the MCFA Science Policy Panel)
Marta Maczel (Interim President, World Academy of Young Scientists)
Janet Metcalfe (Director UK Grad programme)
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair and Euroscience)
Maresi Nerad (CIRGE/University of Washington)
Marie-Gabrielle Schweighofer (Director of Association Bernard Gregory)
Seema Sharma (European Program Director, Science's NextWave)
MCFA – WAYS Joint Workshop on Governance of Young Scientists Associations
•
•
•
•
•
Marta Maczel (Interim president, WAYS)
Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Governing Board & MCFA)
Peter Kerey (Board member, WAYS)
Martin Naef (ETH Zürich)
Maria Harsanyi (Project coordinator, WAYS)
12
Sponsors of ESRM2004
UNESCO
Regional Bureau for Science in Europe (ROSTE)
http://www.unesco.org/venice/
Donor's Association for the Promotion of
Sciences and Humanities in Germany
http://www.stifterverband.org/
Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian
http://www.gulbenkian.pt/
Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation
http://www.rj.se/
The British Council - Lisbon
http://www.britishcouncil.org/
Unilever - Netherlands
http://www.unilever.com/
GlaxoSmithKline
http://gsk.com/index.htm
Center for Inovation, Technology and Policy
Research
http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/
Foundation for Science and Technology
http://www.fct.mces.pt/
13
Sponsors of the MCFA events at ESOF2004
UNESCO
Regional Bureau for Science in Europe (ROSTE)
http://www.unesco.org/venice/
European Commission
Directorate for Science and Society
http://europa.eu.int/comm/
Donor's Association for the Promotion of
Sciences and Humanities in Germany
http://www.stifterverband.org/
14
European and international dimension
15
International Mobility of Scientists and Engineers: A Study on Brain Drain
and Obstacles to Mobility
Sveva Avveduto
National Research Council IRPPS.
Via Nizza 128, 00198, Rome, Italy
s.avveduto@irpps.cnr.it
Abstract
The present paper presents some results of a study on the international mobility of highly skilled personnel, funded
by the European Commission, Directorate General Research. The study focused on the analysis of barriers to
mobility as perceived by the scientists surveyed during the research activity. The obstacles encountered and the
importance given to them was coincident in many aspects in two surveys conducted on two different samples of
mobile researchers. This suggests that policy initiatives to dismantle the barriers may follow similar paths in
countries that differ in structure and organization of science.
Keywords: Brain drain, mobility, highly skilled
The simple and traditional model brain drain/brain gain is no longer adequate to follow the complex
movements of the highly skilled population, to describe and explain international mobility patterns and, even
more, the consequences that these movements generate on creation of knowledge and knowledge investments.
The attention of policy analysts and international organizations on these issues has been growing rapidly in
recent years in order to develop a common framework of analysis (OECD 2001, OECD 2002, UNESCO
2004).
The perception of the evolution of the phenomenon has gradually shifted from the one-way brain
‘drain’ flow to a wider concept of mobility. Focus is turning to policies to develop, attract and retain highlevel skills (Kahn et al. 2004).
Potential effects of mobility have been recognized to be positive or negative, both for the sending and
receiving countries. Science and education policies must take these potential effects carefully into
consideration to prevent possible drawbacks or, on the other end, to favour the positive spill over (Wood,
2004).
The envisioned global effect of increased mobility of human resources for science and technology
(HRST) may be found in the most efficient use of highly qualified work, but the analysis of the effects of
highly qualified international migrations on investments in human capital are still to be fully developed. There
are not yet consolidated indicators that can ease the measurement of the various effects of international
mobility of highly skilled human resources.
Yet, even measuring mobility in terms of flows of qualified people is not an easy task; the lack of
international comparable data on mobility is the evident result of this difficulty. One possible way of
generating data and, generally the most viable one, is to check the flows when highly skilled migrants are
entering a country rather then when they are leaving it. The U.S. tracks immigration flows and careful check
of qualification levels, can be one example of the possibility of obtaining relevant data to monitor the
direction of flows. Table 1 presents figures on highly qualified immigration in U.S. and the share of the EU
citizens over three years 2000 to 2002.
Together with the need for counting and defining the consistency of flows, many questions arise on
the meaning and reasons of mobility. What helps and hinders HRST mobility? What are the driving and the
resisting forces? What barriers are still to be removed and what action can ease the mobility process?
A study on the international mobility of highly skilled was supported by the European Commission1
to investigate these topics and specifically the feasibility of measuring the brain drain/brain gain phenomenon.
The study’s scope included gathering information and intelligence on the flow of researchers, examining
1
Competitiveness, economic analysis and indicators unit of the Directorate for the Knowledge-based economy and society of the Directorate
General for Research; the study was called: Brain Drain Emigration Flows of Qualified Scientists.
16
current literature and measurement techniques, identifying push and pull factors and brain drain trends, and
test and suggest new ways of gathering intelligence on internationally mobile scientists and engineers.
Table 1 Highly Qualified Immigration in USA
Total H-1B beneficiaries
Total EU-25 H-1B beneficiaries
2000
257,64
33,827
2001
331,206
28,93
2002
197,537
22,502
Source: US Immigration and Naturalization Service
The research group was made of teams at MERIT, Maastricht University (headed by Wendy Hansen),
at IKU Budapest University (headed by Annamaria Inzelt) and our team at CNR in Rome. The international
team of researchers conducted investigation on research discussion of brain drain phenomenon, produced
analysis describing immigration/emigration trends and related policy developments in EU countries and key
receptor countries (Australia, Canada, and the U.S.), conducted new and innovative surveys on international
mobility of HRST. In particular MERIT designed a pilot e-survey carried out through an intermediary
organization to reach a target group of scientists known to be internationally mobile. IKU designed a pilot
survey to consider the characteristics and challenges of East European Countries to investigate the relationship
between direct foreign investments and foreign researchers and scientists in Hungary. CNR designed a pilot
survey to highlight the situation of foreign researchers in Italian public research institutions exploring also
push and pull factors.. Some of the results of the MERIT and CNR surveys, i.e. those concerning the barriers
to mobility, are presented in this paper.2
The attractiveness of the science career is somewhat considered as doubtful by young people (Lola,
Meyer, 2004) and the advantages to pursue the academic/research options are questioned. But once the career
is chosen, the opportunity to benefit from work experience abroad often arises and the decision to either move
or not has to be taken.
In particular, young researchers have to face, more than the most experienced ones, difficulties and
obstacles concerning specific information prior to leaving and, in the foreign country, have to face problems
concerning visa, social security, fiscal matters (Lola, 2004).
The issues concerning barriers and obstacles to mobility have been one of the topics addressed by the
mentioned study on international mobility. The two target groups of CNR and MERIT surveys have been
asked to respond and comment on the level of impact the barriers identified to mobility had both prior to
leaving and after in the receiving country. It is worth remembering that the two sets of responding population
were different and also the means of submission of requested information was different (mail questionnaire in
the first case and electronic personalized survey in the second). Yet, we received similar sets of responses and
similar sets of problems identified as those relevant to be faced.
Table 2 CNR Survey: Barriers identified by foreign researchers in Italy
Visa work permits admin. in Italy
Visa work permits admin. in home
Country
Language
Housing availability/costs
strong factor medium factor
29,4
36,8
9,3
20,6
17,9
24,9
31,1
40,2
not a factor
33,8
70,1
51
34,9
Source: CNR Survey
Foreign researchers working in Italian public research institutions identified problems concerned with
administrative burdens, getting visa and work permits. This was less a question of concern in their home
country than in Italy, actually in their home country this was not perceived as a hindering factor in 70,1% of
2
The complete results of the studies carried out by the Italian team can be found in: Avveduto, Brandi, Todisco 2004.
17
cases, while in Italy this was perceived as the most important barrier to be faced, 66,2% of respondents
mentioned this as a medium or strong hindering factor (Table 2). The practical questions, such as finding a
suitable accommodation at a reasonable cost, are mentioned as the second important barrier to mobility
(65,1%). Although Italian is not at all a vehicular language, this was not perceived as a major problem, the use
of English as a common shared scientific language certainly plays a significant role in not assigning to this
potential barrier a relevant importance.
The MERIT survey addressed its target population specifying two separate groups: those living and
working abroad at the time of the interview and those who had previously lived abroad and had returned
home. Distinguishing the EU-born respondents from the US-born respondents, one can observe that in the past
the EU-born reported more problems than the US-born in terms of difficulties in acquiring visa, language and
the social system (table 3). The data referring to researchers currently working abroad do not indicate a
considerable difference from the previous sample except for U.S.-born in considering the importance of the
housing problems as a more consistent barrier.
Table 3 Merit survey: Importance of barriers to working abroad by birthplace: percent
citing each barrier as somewhat or very problematic
Proviously worked abroad
Lack of info prior to moving
Problems in acquiring visa
Language
Cost /availability of houses
Social System
EU
23,3
27,7
22,3
22,3
32,2
US
23,4
15
11,5
20,3
18
Currently working abroad
EU
21,6
28,7
17,2
15,7
28,8
US
27,8
16,7
11,1
33,3
13
Source: MERIT Survey
The gender differences (Table 4) remark for the past experiences of mobility a significant lower
percentage of men reporting problems for all the kinds of mentioned barriers. If we consider the experience of
women in comparing the weight of the barriers in the past and in the present situation we should notice that a
relative better condition has occurred as among women currently working abroad the incidence of the barriers
are lower either compared to men’s responses and to women’s one the were working abroad previously. The
only barrier for which this change does not apply is still the visa/administrative problems one.
Table 4 Merit survey: Importance of barriers to working abroad by gender percent citing
each barrier as somewhat or very problematic
Previously worked abroad
Lack of info prior to moving
Problems in acquiring visa
Language
Cost /availability of houses
Social System
Men
21,8
15,4
14,7
20,1
20,5
Women
30,2
32,8
15
23,3
28,7
Currently working abroad
Men
24
26,9
18,8
21,3
26,1
Women
18,7
26,7
8
10,6
26,7
Source: MERIT Survey
Some concluding observations
As a general conclusion based on the overall surveys results of the project (that have not been
presented in this paper but it is worthwhile to refer to), we can affirm that the key factors in the mobility
decision making process are those linked to the scientific activity. Salary is an important consideration, but
18
most often it is not identified as the key or deciding factor in the decision to go abroad (Brandi, Cerbara,
2004). Scientific level of hosting institution, work environment, R&D resources and availability of scientific
equipment, play a more significant role as driving forces. Availability of scientific equipment and access to
technology are high on the ‘attractiveness’ scale and brought foreign researchers to Italy and EU-born ones to
the US. The most important reasons cited for keeping EU-born scientists and engineers abroad relate to work
quality (Hansen, 2003).
We noted that women are underrepresented in international mobility, confirming the general trend in
a lesser involvement of women into science and engineering activities. The MERIT survey results suggest that
women still adhere to the stereotype of having to choose a career or a family. The many initiatives taken both
at national and international levels though, may possibly reverse the trend when one considers increasing
participation of women in higher education and the growth in the number of women earning degrees in S&T
(European Commission, 2003). As a policy indication, paralleling the pressure in favouring initiatives that
bring women closer to the science arena, it should also be taken into careful consideration the mobility
question as gender biased.
Concerning the mobile researchers both in the CNR and in the MERIT survey the reasons to move
were marked by many similarities and all clearly linked to scientific reasons more than any other. The
evaluation of their experience abroad has been mostly positive and the negative side is mainly due to the
burden created by bureaucracies’ red tape, and in particular due to the difficulties in obtaining work permits
and residence visa (as mostly referred by EU-born in MERIT survey and by non EU citizen in CNR survey).
Paperwork barriers in Europe continue to be problematic for foreign researchers and their employers.
Measures to foster mobility3 should be envisaged to ease the way of international mobile workers offering
them a privileged path for mobility that can cut off from the very beginning the unnecessary burdens.
References
Avveduto, S, Brandi, M.C., Todisco E. (2004), (eds.) Le migrazioni qualificate tra mobilità e brain drain: Numero
monografico Studi Emigrazione/Migration Studies, 156, 771-1017
Brandi, M. C., Cerbara, L. (2004), Highly skilled Migrants Inflows and Outflows in Italy, 2nd Conference of the
EAPS Working Group on International Migration in Europe, International Migration in Europe: New Trends, New
Methods of Analysis, Rome, Italy, 25-27 November 2004
Commission of European Communities (2004), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament on the presentation of a proposal for a directive and two proposals for recommendations on
the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European Community.
COM/2004/0178 final
European Commission (2003), She Figures 2003, Women and Science, Statistics and Indicators, Bruxelles,
European Commission
Hansen, W. (2003), A Web-based E-Survey on the International Mobility of Scientists and Engineers, Final Report
for Brain Drain Project, Brussels, European Commission
Kahn, M. E., Blankley, W., Maharajh, R. Pogue, T. Reddy, V., Cele, G. (2004), Flight of the Flamingos, a Study on
the Mobility of R&D Workers, Cape Town, HSRC Press
Lola, M. (2004), Training Mobility and Career Development of Researchers, in Wood, F. Q., op. cit.
Lola, M., Meyer, D. (2004), Science as a Career: Still an Attractive Option? In. Avveduto, S., (ed.) Fostering the
Development of Human Resources for Science and Technology, Rome, Biblink
OECD (2001), Innovative people: Mobility of Skilled Personnel in National Innovation Systems, Paris, OECD
OECD (2002), International Mobility of the Highly Skilled, Paris, OECD
UNESCO-CEPES (2004), International Roundtable on Brain Drain and the Academic and Intellectual Labour
Market in South East Europe, Bucharest, Romania, 18-19 June 2004
3
The Commission has suggested and implemented many directives on the topic.
19
Wood, F. Q. (2004), (ed.) Beyond Brain Drain. Mobility, Competitiveness and Scientific Excellence, Workshop
Report, Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy, University of New England, Armidale, Retrieved
February 7, 2005, from http://www.fasts.org
20
Researcher mobility: Opportunities and challenges
Magda Lola
Physics Department, University of Patras
and
Marie Curie Fellowship Association
Patras, Greece
mlola@mariecurie.org, Magda.Lola@cern.ch
Abstract
In recent years, as the knowledge base and dissemination rapidly expand, research mobility is becoming
increasingly important. Having the possibility to study and work outside one’s own country brings about significant
benefits and provides invaluable training. However, mobility is not always an easy path, and there are often many
obstacles to overcome. In what follows, we will make some observations on recurrent problems that researchers
face, based on statistical information collected among others by the Marie Curie Fellowship Association, and
propose possible ways to address them.
Introduction
In recent years we have witnessed a significant change in the way research is conducted, with the
need for collaborations and interaction outside national boarders becoming more evident, even for subjects
that are traditionally based on individual work. Within this framework, a large number of fellowships provide
researchers with increased opportunities for training and work experience, promoting the dissemination of
knowledge and widening their career prospects. However, despite the clear benefits of research mobility, there
are also several problems, such as [1-4]:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of information on job and fellowship openings, but also on how to organise life in a foreign
country.
Lack of recruitment opportunities and long-term job perspectives.
Irregular investment in research in most national states and significant budget cuts, which particularly
affect early stage researchers.
Inadequate provisions for training, mentoring and career development.
Inappropriate administrative frameworks.
Lack of concrete plans and long term visions for the future of science, in combination with insufficient
communication channels between different disciplines and research sectors, but also between scientists
and society as a whole.
In view of the need for a wider international collaboration and co-operation, it becomes imperative to
properly address these issues. Networks and associations of researchers can play a major role in this respect
by putting forward views and concrete suggestions, based on the experience of their members. This is one of
the main aims of the Marie Curie Fellowship Association (MCFA), the network of current and former holders
of a Marie Curie Fellowship or a similar European Community Research Training Grant. The association was
founded in 1996 at the initiative of the European Commission and today has more than 3000 registered
scientists located all over Europe, but also in the US, Canada and Australia. In an effort to promote support
mechanisms for researchers and voice their views on science policy questions, the MCFA has been coorganiser of both the ESRM2004 and ESOF2004 (Career Programme) events, and has performed several
studies on researchers’ careers and prospects, which are summarised in this paper.
Researcher mobility: opportunities and obstacles
There are clear challenges and advantages associated to research mobility and, for many people, it is
the only way to acquire access to the research facilities and infrastructures required for making important
21
progress [5]. Researchers are given the opportunity to work in forefront activities with experts in their field,
outside their country of origin and often in a different discipline than the one they started with. In addition,
while acquiring scientific knowledge without boarders and constraints their work becomes significantly more
visible.
The benefits from mobility, however, go far beyond that. Integration in a multinational and
multicultural environment typically leads to early scientific maturity and independence. People learn to be
flexible and open-minded and to easily adapt to new situations and global structures, skills that will be useful
in any work environment. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that the vast majority of researchers have
declared in discussions, but also interviews and surveys, that the impact of international training schemes on
their career has been extremely positive and that it will eventually enhance their future career prospects.
Despite the fact that mobility is strongly encouraged and brings about significant benefits, early stage
researchers are also confronted with a series of obstacles [1-4]. And in fact, one of the first difficulties,
especially for a young person who is thinking to move for the first time to a new place, is the lack of adequate
information on available fellowship and job opportunities, but also on questions related to visa, social security
rights, fiscal matters and practical aspects of everyday life in a foreign country. During a fellowship abroad,
there can also be difficulties in the work itself, frequently related to inadequate opportunities for training,
mentoring and career development. The irregular funding for research and budget cuts imposed in academic
and research institutions often limit the opportunities of fellows to attend conferences, but also courses in
languages and transferable skills. Fellows also find that there is a big difference between the available
opportunities in various host institutions (whose quality but also attitude towards fellows may vastly differ)
and that a wrong choice may be very damaging for one’s career.
Among the major concerns of researchers is the frequent lack of appropriate frameworks, harmonised
at an international level. While provisions for health insurance are usually made (although not always at the
level required), provisions for other social benefits vary from minimal to non-existing. Female researchers are
particularly vulnerable to problems of this type, which, in combination with the traditional expectation that
women absorb a bigger load of child-care and housework, result in a drop-out from research in significantly
higher rates than among their male colleagues.
Having said this, the major worry of researchers continues to be “what comes next”. While mobility
provides invaluable training and learning opportunities not otherwise available, it often leaves people in an
unclear career situation. At the moment there is a significant waste of human capital, due to the lack of
opportunities for permanent or long-term employment in the public or private sector. Moreover, in some
countries, the time required to qualify for a permanent academic position is too long and makes such careers
unattractive especially to young researchers who are planning to build up a family.
In general, researchers find that there are too few longer-term career options and that there is no
appropriate balance between short-term fellowships and tenure track positions. The added value of
international and/or intersectoral mobility is often not recognised, both for reintegration but also for career
advancement. On the contrary, a mobile researcher often loses contact with the institutes and the research
structure of his country, which makes reintegration quite difficult. These problems are particularly amplified
in countries with recruitment procedures that strongly favour local applicants, or candidates having close ties
with local staff [1,3].
Policies and strategies for researcher recruitment
Recruitment procedures in many European countries leave much to be desired (both at the level of
temporary positions for young researchers but also for longer-term openings). As a result, the importance of
defining and implementing appropriate policies and strategies is widely acknowledged, especially with respect
to the following [1-4]:
• Optimal use of available resources. In doing so, it is important to identify the future needs in R&D
and the domains where priority should be given, keeping in mind that an appropriate balance between
fundamental and applied research should be ensured. We should avoid by all means a proliferation of
the current situation, with over-abundance of researchers in certain domains and “voids” on others.
• Promotion of appropriate fellowship but also long term recruitment programmes, with links to
industry, education and society. These programmes ought to have a well-defined administrative
framework, as well as concrete provisions for training, mentoring and career development. Early
stage researchers must be adequately supervised, and not seen as human-power.
• Wide publicity of openings. Recruitment strategies, in addition to the standard job advertisements can
involve active outreach programmes (through career fairs, exhibitions, visits to technical schools,
22
colleges, universities and job centres, with presentations, posters and other informative material).
Brochures for the various openings, regularly distributed to universities and technological institutes,
and web-sites with well-structured information, are particularly welcomed.
• Selection on grounds of excellence, based on objective and transparent criteria. These include the
level of degree, experience after a university diploma, publications, citations, the number of papers as
first author (for certain fields), conference attendance, presentations, invited talks, teaching
experience, official responsibilities including duties as thesis supervisor, time spent abroad,
international collaborations, prizes or other special distinctions obtained, letters of reference by
established scientists, access to European funds, patents, etc. However, researchers often observe
large differences between the guidelines for recruitment and what is really happening. Personal
connections sometimes dominate over scientific merit, and local candidates are often strongly
favoured.
• Provide adequate opportunities for long-term positions, in parallel with the identification of research
areas where a long-term strategic vision should be promoted. By developing strong links between
different countries and sectors, but also between science and society, attractive career options at an
international and intersectoral level can be created. Finding appropriate reintegration mechanisms is
particularly important, especially if we are to prevent brain drain from the less favoured countries to
the more developed ones.
• Ensure appropriate employment conditions, and provide assistance to researchers with all practical
problems they may face in a foreign country.
In order to address the need for more centralised and easily accessible information on available
fellowship and job opportunities, and also on questions related to visa, social security rights, fiscal matters and
practical aspects of everyday life in a foreign country, the Commission has set up several initiatives: The first
is the Researcher’s Mobility Portal, which already went online in the summer of 2003, while new
functionalities keep being added. Besides offering a host of reliable information that is essential for mobile
researchers, it now also gives the opportunity to post one’s CV and to search up-to-date job adverts in research
related fields. The second initiative closely related to the Portal is the Network of Mobility Centres, which
provides personalised assistance to researchers and their families in all countries of the European Union and
Associated States. Additional initiatives include the adoption of a European Researcher’s Charter and a Code
of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers, aiming at promoting an appropriate and transparent
framework for recruitment and career management and improving the employment prospects of researchers in
Europe. Moreover, in view of the opening up of the Framework Programmes to non-European researchers,
various initiatives by the Commission have also been put forward.
Employment conditions and social security
It goes without saying that the salaries of researchers should be appropriate at all stages, including
PhD students and post-doctoral fellows. Payment should be on the basis of work contracts including all
elements of social protection that more senior colleagues benefit from (grants however can be an interesting
alternative in the case of a short term placement abroad). Passing to social security, it is true that most
countries try to make adequate provisions for at least health insurance. There are of course variations on the
level of coverage, and people may have to join complementary schemes for obtaining full reimbursements,
dental and optical care, special surgery, private hospitalisation costs, etc. The situation however becomes
much worse when we pass to pension schemes, where problems related to the transferability of rights present
a big obstacle. Some mobile researchers have never been integrated into any pension scheme, or contribute to
pension schemes from which they cannot profit. This is evident among others from their replies to MCFA
surveys (“I am about 40 years old by now and between the various moves I never participated in any pension
scheme”, “my host institute does not want me to join the pension scheme here and I can’t join the one in my
home country because I’m not taxed there”, “pension contributions were heavily taxed when I tried to move
them out of the host country”…). Young female researchers on temporary positions or grants encounter the
special disadvantage that maternity leave is often not available to them, or it is not taken into account at the
time of calculating their eligibility for funding schemes in case of age constraints. There are additional
problems with social security and unemployment benefits, often related to interruptions between contracts.
23
These issues have been studied in a survey performed by the three principal associations of young
scientists in Europe, the Marie Curie Fellowship Association (MCFA), Eurodoc and Pi-net, with the
participation of 2790 researchers (43% female) [6]. The results (Fig. 1) confirm that researchers of both
genders, but especially women, are very concerned about social security (especially regarding health
insurance, but also pension rights, and unemployment, family and housing benefits).
80
70
60
50
F
40
M
30
20
10
0
0-3
4
In general
5
0-3
4
5
0-3
Health insurance
4
5
Pension rights
0-3
4
5
Unemployment insurance
0-3
4
5
Family & housing benefits
Figure 1: Importance attached to social security by female (dark) and male (light) researchers.
The ranking scales from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important).
The establishment of an appropriate global framework at European level has been identified as the
only way to effectively address the above problems, but also to reduce the currently very large variations
between different national states. It is also seen as essential to define a transnational ‘researcher’ status, which
would establish a clear professional identity for researchers, with explicit rights and obligations attached to it.
This would bring about several benefits, ensuring among others that recruitment and employment practices,
salaries and social security conditions will become more appropriate, uniform and transparent.
Training in Soft Skills – MCFA survey results
Training is an essential component in a knowledge-based economy, and a lot of emphasis has always
been attached to the acquisition of solid scientific competencies. However, it is now becoming increasingly
clear that, in addition to the scientific training that researchers receive during their studies, further skills need
to be acquired and developed. Training in management and leadership is becoming more and more essential,
while excellent technical results can be greatly enhanced by basic communication, presentation and language
skills. Despite the needs, however, such competencies are typically not addressed as part of a university
curriculum, and are obtained rather late in a researcher’s career.
In an effort to identify the type of soft skills that researchers consider important, as well as the best
ways to acquire them, MCFA performed a survey among 300 researchers and communicated the results to the
European Commission and EARMA (European Association of Research Managers and Administrators) [7].
32% of the responders were female researchers. Most fellows came from Germany and Spain, while the main
countries of residence were Germany and the UK.
It comes as no surprise that the vast majority of fellows who responded to the survey would like to
receive continued professional training in complementary skills (Fig. 2), and that they consider it important
for recruitment and career development (Fig. 3).
24
Yes
Figure 2: “Would you like to receive continued
training in complementary skills?”
No
Indifferent
Figure 3: “Would such training make you a
more attractive candidate for a job?”
Fig. 4 below indicates the priorities of fellows regarding the type of training based on the subjects
provided. It is clear that they are particularly interested in practical issues, directly related to their work and
career development, such as Project Management, Scientific Communication, Proposal Writing and Fundraising, while there is less demand for Legal Issues related to Research (e.g. Consortium Agreements),
Marketing and Business Administration [7].
Regarding Scientific Communication, it was evident from the comments of the fellows that their
needs go well beyond teaching skills, or the ability to write well-structured scientific publications and deliver
successful presentations. Soft skills required for teamwork and networking and scientific communication
between different sectors, including the industrial one, are seen as particularly important within a society
where rapid adaptability of scientist to different work environments is required. It has also been underlined
that training in scientific communication ought to take into account the increasing needs for international cooperation and cross-cultural training. Communication of scientists with the public is also highly ranked; it is
considered that often science is not appropriately propagated through the media, and that researchers should
have a more active role in strengthening the links of science with society.
Having identified the type of training mostly requested by researchers, the next step is to investigate
which are the best ways to provide it. It is clear that the particular preferences depend on the personality of the
individual and the topic where training is needed (certain skills can be communicated remotely, while others
are transmitted more effectively via personalised training), while a combination of complementary training
methods can be most efficient. Nevertheless, the vast majority of fellows would prefer dedicated training
workshops, namely structured and person-to-person training. On-the-job training by the employer comes
second in the preferences of researchers. Distance learning (study of guides written by experts, E-learning and
Web-based courses) is seen by fellows as very practical and particularly well adapted for processing a large
volume of concrete information, but not the most efficient way to develop soft skills. Having said this,
however, the importance of finding reliable written material on the Internet has also been underlined.
The Gender dimension of research mobility
The first step in addressing gender issues is to get a solid understanding of the trends in female
recruitment. A common observation is that many women leave their field immediately after university or the
first post-doctoral appointment, and that their percentage drops even further as we pass to more advanced
career stages. The problem is particularly acute in certain disciplines and career paths where, traditionally, the
presence of women has been very weak. One such area is physics and related technologies and in this respect,
gender data from CERN (the European Organisation for Nuclear Research) can be very useful. Assuming that
the numbers of CERN in fundamental and applied science reflect at some level the respective populations in
the various countries, we can get an indication of the drop-out of women, by comparing the percentage of
women applicants for CERN programmes of different seniority levels (from summer students to senior
associates) [8].
25
Figure 4: Training needs by subject.
Fellows insisted a lot on the practical difficulties of obtaining the required training, especially
financial and time constraints. The price of training courses is often forbidding, and researchers cannot afford
them unless funded by their institution/employer or by some grant. In addition, timetables are extremely
loaded, while supervisors and employers often want to see that the work is done, but do not consider the time
spent on training as part of the schedule of the researcher.
In Fig. 5 we look at the percentage of female applicants (part 1) and we compare selection and
application rates for women (part 2). It is evident from the second plot that, on average, there is no bias
against women at the selection level (except for a consistent positive bias for young summer students). From
the first plot, however, we confirm that the percentage of female applicants decreases significantly as we pass
from students to fellows and then to senior associates. In this latter case, the low percentage of women
applicants is alarming and reflects to a large extend the weak representation of women in advanced career
stages at a national level, where the pool of applicants comes from. The data obtained at CERN is consistent
with information on Commission fellowships [9], indicating that, for most countries, the proportion of women
applicants is significantly smaller at the postdoctoral level than in doctoral studies.
In various survey items, both male and female researchers show their concern about training and
career perspectives. Their replies are often very similar, it is interesting however to note that [8]:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
To the question “are researchers sufficiently recognised by society?” 72% of women give a rating
below average, compared to 66% of men.
22% of female researchers believe that their gender had a negative influence in the way they were
treated by their supervisor (3% for male researchers).
To the question “are your long term career perspectives the same as for people of the opposite
gender?” 40% of the women replied “not really”, compared to 23% of the men (while 40% of the
women replied positively, compared to 60% of the men).
Regarding training needs in soft skills, 97% of female researchers (compared to 86% men) would like
to receive further training. Moreover, 92% (compared to 79% for men) consider that this training
would make them more attractive candidates for a job.
The combined data clearly indicates a bias, and conclusively, the need for concrete measures in a wide range
of areas:
26
30%
1.6
% of women candidates
Ratio of % of appointed over
% of candidate women
25%
1.4
20%
1.2
15%
1
Positive bias
No bias
30%
0.8
20%
10%
10%
Negative bias
0%
5%
1998
1998
1999
Summer Students
0.6
1999
2000
2001
2002
1998
Doctoral & Technical Students
1999
2000
Fellows
2000
2001
2002
Associates
Figure 5: Gender data from a European Laboratory (CERN) by seniority level.
1) Awareness and information flow:
National States are urged to provide lists of contact points for gender-related work, in collaboration
with Universities and research institutions. The Commission, having a database of projects and
partners from Framework Programmes, could also bring together people who have been working on
gender issues. Other provisions include the establishment of international databases of female
experts, e-mail distributions of current awareness and dedicated web sites, but also organisation of
conferences on gender aspects. Young people (and particularly young women) should be encouraged
to become more active in the debates.
2) Recruitment:
The first step in removing any possible bias in recruitment is that vacancies should be expressed in
gender-neutral terms, encouraging equal opportunity employment. Concrete procedures should be
established to include women in selection committees and ensure that the number of female candidates
interviewed is proportional to the number of female applicants. On the contrary, fixed quotas for women
are not well seen even by female researchers (excellence should be the dominant criterion, while quota
systems can turn against women for future career development). Among the major obstacles for women
who would like to combine career and family are eligibility criteria based on physical age. A best practice
example in this direction is the decision of the European Commission to abolish age limits in the Sixth
Framework Programme, and use the “experience” criterion instead.
3) Training and career development:
Training and mentoring for career development on management, interview techniques, ‘springboard’ to
key positions, but also on how to access European funding are considered essential by female fellows.
The promotion of special seminars and courses that pay attention to women has also been proposed.
Management courses should be addressed to supervisors as well, to raise awareness of gender issues, and
to encourage them to identify high potential men and women and help them to develop their skills on
grounds of equal opportunities. In parallel, it is essential to provide qualified women with adequate
chances to undertake tasks of high responsibility, but also to participate in expert panels, statutory
committees and decision-making bodies.
4) Supportive work environment and frameworks:
Universities, research institutions and companies should provide a supportive environment where it is
possible to properly combine a research career with family life. The presence of a child-care centre on site
would allow parents to spend time with their children during extended lunch breaks. The opening hours of
27
these facilities should be adjusted to the work schedules of researchers. In parallel, flexible hours for
working parents, part time work arrangements or work from home could help even further.
Outlook
At a time where a large number of fellowships provide a lot of opportunities for training and work
experience outside one’s own country, mobile researchers are faced with numerous challenges and problems
to overcome. In most countries the R&D investment is irregular and significant budget cuts are taking place.
The lack of concrete plans and visions for research is translated to a lack of recruitment opportunities, leading
to a huge waste of human capital. Framework conditions and administrative structures are not adapted to the
needs of a wider employment market. The problems are common for both genders, but statistical data and
survey feedback indicate that women are particularly affected by these difficulties.
It is clear that unless we achieve a more regular investment in research in combination with a clear
long-term vision, career prospects for researchers cannot significantly improve. A better communication
between scientists, policy makers, politicians and the public can help towards demonstrating the importance of
science in a knowledge based economy and enhancing the attractiveness and prospects for research careers.
Emphasis ought to also be given to dissemination of information and best practice examples throughout
countries and continents, by awareness raising events and international workshops, but also virtual
infrastructures for wide access of information.
Short-term mobility ought to be balanced with adequate long-term career options. In this area,
additional opportunities can be created by encouraging inter-sectoral long-term mobility based on the
stimulation of interest from the business sector in R&D. Establishing a clear professional identity for
researchers will help in this direction, but also in defining objective criteria for researcher recruitment and
career development, based on equal opportunities and transferability of rights.
References
1) Lola, M. and Meyer, D.M. (2004), Science as a career: still an attractive option?, in: Fostering the
Development of Human Resources for Science and Technology, Proceedings of the CNR-OECD Conference,
Rome, 5-6 June 2003. Rome, biblink editori
2) Lola, M. and Meyer, D.M. (2004), Changing times, Changing Places, ELSO Gazette Issue Number 19,
http://www.the-elso-gazette.org/magazines/issue19/features/features4.asp
3) Lola, M., Maggio, G.M., Meyer, D.M. et al. (2003), Challenges and prospects for a researcher’s career in the
European Research Area, MCFA Report to the European Commission,
http://www.mariecurie.org/science/Career.pdf
4) Brambilla, N., Dando, J., Lola, M., Maggio, G.M. and Meyer D.M. (2002) On: More research for Europe –
towards 3% of GDP, MCFA Statement to the European Commission,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/era/3pct/3pct-feedbackcommunication.html.
5) Lola, M. (2004), Try your hand in a foreign land, Physics World, Career Section, December 2004.
6) MCFA, Eurodoc and Pi-Net survey on training and career prospects for European researchers,
http://www.mariecurie.org/surveys/YS_survey/results.html
7) Dando, J., Lola, M. and Meining, W. (2003), MCFA survey: Training needs of researchers on complementary
skills, http://www.mariecurie.org/science/Training.pdf
8) Lola, M. (2003), Dropout of Women from Research: monitoring and proposals, presented at the Symposium on
Science Policy, Mobility and Brain Drain, Univ. of Leeds. To appear in Innovation: The European Journal of
Social Science Research.
9) Ackers, H.L (2001), The participation of women researchers in the TMR Programme of the European Commission,
European Commission Report, available at http://www.cordis.lu/improving
28
A European Monitoring System on Researchers and Research Personnel
Paola Di Pietrogiacomo
Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies
Joint Research Centre / European Commission
Edificio Expo / Calle Inca Garcilaso s/n
E-41092 Sevilla
paola.di-pietrogiacomo@cec.eu.int
Olivier Da Costa
Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies
Joint Research Centre / European Commission
Edificio Expo / Calle Inca Garcilaso s/n
E-41092 Sevilla
olivier.da-costa@cec.eu.int
Abstract
This paper discusses the state of the art of statistics on researchers and research personnel in Europe. It shows the
unavailability of adequate data needed for studying researchers’ mobility and careers. Within this frame, the
European Commission has undertaken the development of a monitoring system of Researchers and Research
Personnel in Europe. The prototype and the full operational phases of this project are presented.
Keywords: Researchers, research personnel, human resources in Science & Technology, researchers’
mobility and careers, monitoring system
The Importance of Statistics on Researchers and Research Personnel
It is not recent, that the Human Resources factor is at the centre of studies on research and innovation;
the Royal Society in England first coined the expression “brain drain” back in 1963. However, the issues of
researchers’ mobility and careers have hit the media spotlight only recently and it is becoming clear that the
lack of adequate statistics is impeding the understanding of the nature, scale or net output of the phenomena of
brain circulation across countries, regions, sectors and professions.
Detailed and up-to-date quantitative and qualitative information on researchers and research
personnel stocks is essential in order to analyse the match or mismatch between the offer, inputs from
Scientific Master and PhD graduates, and the demand for researchers, needs from the industry and public
research sectors. Thereby, these data are necessary for assessing the competitiveness and innovation
capabilities of Europe and monitoring the progresses towards Lisbon’s knowledge society. As an illustration,
it is estimated that a full-scale implementation of the so-called Lisbon strategy would require an increase of
700 000 of the number of researchers and 1.5 millions of the number of research personnel across EU25
before 2010. It is therefore not surprising that the human resources in R&D are to stay at the centre of the
current political debate.
There is discrepancy among the various definitions of “researchers” from various sources and at
various times. In the most recent European Commission documents4 researchers are defined as all persons
professionally engaged in a research career, at all stages of a career in R&D5, regardless of their classification
which includes any activities related equally to “basic research”, “strategic research”, “applied research”,
“experimental development” and “transfer of knowledge” including innovation and advisory, supervision and
teaching capacities, the management of knowledge and intellectual property rights, the exploitation of
4
Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of
Researchers, December 2004.
5
COM (2003) 436 of 18 July 2003: “Researchers in the ERA: One profession, multiple careers”.
29
research results or scientific journalism. Moreover, “all researchers engaged in a research career should be
recognised as professionals and be treated accordingly since the beginning of their careers, namely at
postgraduate level, regardless of their classification at national level (e.g. employee, postgraduate student,
doctoral candidate or postdoctoral fellow), while recognising that certain differences may remain between
Member States”6. The inclusion, or not, of doctoral students within the statistics of researchers is one reason
for discrepancy.
By statistics on researchers and research personnel, we mean the stocks, i.e. the number in specific
categories, and the fluxes, i.e. the move between different categories. The categories can be seen as
elementary boxes defined by different dimensions such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
demographic data (age, gender, nationality now and at birth, year of entry);
diplomas (master; PhD, years);
scientific fields: seven broad fields of study defined by the OECD’s Canberra Manual [Canberra
1995] (natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical sciences, agricultural sciences,
social sciences, humanities, and other fields);
activity sectors;
occupation;
contractual data (tenure or non-tenure positions, duration and origin of funding in case of nontenured);
countries and regions;
institutions and research teams and previous higher institution.
If possible, the data should be expressed in Head Count and Full-Time Equivalent.
Theoretically, fluxes are nothing but derivative of the stocks and could be interfered this way. But data, even
the best worldwide available from the US National Science Foundation, are not sufficiently detailed for this
purpose. Data on fluxes are therefore to be collected in parallel from those on stocks.
State of the Art
Data on researchers and research personnel are collected at national level by statistical offices and
other actors in the various member states (i.e. government agencies, Universities, alumni associations,
research groups…).
The European statistical agency (Eurostat) compiles R&D statistics at European level according to a
common template for the various member states. They include data on research personnel and researchers and
on Human Resources in S&T7. These statistics are available on line and naturally constitute the frame on any
European-wide study in this sector.
However, the statistics are often only available at aggregated level, or are uncompleted. Information
on flows of researchers is particularly scarce, except for possibly the input of researchers as PhD graduates.
The immigration services of the various Member States are not anymore recording data on the move of
researchers within Europe and inter-European mobility is therefore a major gap of knowledge.
The Project of a European Monitoring System on Researchers and Research Personnel
Rationale of the Project
A European Monitoring System on Researchers and Research Personnel does not exist yet and its
development is foreseen as a long-term perspective, in particular for locating the appropriate information. The
assumption underlying the whole project is that there are a patchwork of information, data, analyses and
knowledge in government agencies and centres of expertise in the different Member States across Europe.
6
7
See 1.
HRST is defined according to the Canberra Manual as a person fulfilling one of the following conditions:
•Successfully completed education at the third level in a S&T field of study1;
•Not formally qualified as above, but employed in a S&T occupation where the above qualifications are normally required.
30
However, much of this material is incomplete or limited in terms of geographical, sectoral or professional
coverage. It is scattered, under-exploited and nobody has the complete picture. The idea is therefore to
valorise these scattered initiatives and studies by combining and extrapolating intelligently information of
different origins, bits and pieces and even quasi-anecdotal stories so as to approximate data that are not
compiled as such. Thereby we aim at creating new knowledge out of the integration of existing material into a
common European perspective and framework.
The first objectives of our process are:
• To determine which data on researchers and research personnel are available across Europe and to
precise their accuracy and the compatibility of the various formats;
• To precise exactly at which disaggregated level these data are available in terms of scientific fields,
activity sectors, regions, institutions or research teams;
• To determine, if and when they are not available, how is it possible to approach these values from
other data on HRST (education and occupation).
The European Monitoring System on Researchers and Research Personnel will be developed in two
phases.
Prototype
The first phase started early 2005 and will last for 15 months. The first objective is to draw a global
picture of the current situation, gathering and mapping a good proportion of the existing information. Not only
studies at the global, national or European level are considered but also very specific or local research projects
as well as “grey information” from experts which can lead to sources of information, data and trends that are
well below the radar screen. Already at this early stage of the project, we are facing the trade-off between one
the one hand as much information as possible, and on the other the homogeneity of the coverage, the userfriendliness of the system and its capacity to allow queries across countries. This is certainly going to be one
of the major challenges of this project.
In this first phase, only a subset of about 10 member states of the Framework programme will be
covered, out of a total of 33. The three largest countries in terms of research capabilities, Germany, France
and United Kingdom, together including more than 70% of the total of researchers, will be included.
The various formats of the data will be harmonised and put in a European perspective. The data will
be disaggregated by public and private sectors and by scientific fields.
The characteristics of the most relevant surveys and studies will be recorded on appropriate fiches
including the type (national registers, R&D statistics, labour force surveys, first-job-after-graduation surveys,
researchers’ mobility survey data, register including data on qualifications, immigration data, aggregate data
studies, register-based data studies, scientific careers studies, etc), the frequency, the budget and operational
conditions when’s available. These fiches will give an overview of the information availability in each
country and present the main actors in information collection and analysis and the instruments, structures and
expertise centres in each country of the project.
It is expected that at the end of this phase a first realistic, albeit partial, overview of the European
landscape in this investigation field, will be available. It will cover the stocks of researchers with their inflows
and outflows, their mobility and career paths. The information will be structured as a comprehensive userfriendly data-warehouse with appropriate links between the various databases and consultable through queries.
Subsequently we will analyse the most meaningful data and identifying the information gaps. We
expect to draw interesting conclusions from putting into perspective studies which had never been confronted
before. In particular, we will pay attention to the following four issues, which intend to be representative of
the major steps of a researchers’ career and of the challenges s/he faces in his/her professional life:
• The mobility between countries (within the EU and between the EU and the rest of the world),
principally for post-doc and junior researchers, so as to tackle the issues of brain circulation;
• The mobility between public and private sectors, principally for more senior researchers;
• The transition between non-permanent (non-tenure) and permanent (tenure) positions within R&D
functions (mostly one way).
• The transition between R&D and non-R&D functions (mostly one way, flux out of the system), both in
the private and public sectors.
We will pay particular attention to the regional dimension as this is the adequate territorial
subdivision for studying innovation and competitiveness.
The second objective is to explore the feasibility of a sustainable fully-operational European-wide
Integrated Information System and to define its specifications, requirements and framework conditions.
Actually, this whole prototyping phase is envisaged as a learning process. It is expected that useful
31
methodological lessons for the inventory, analysis and classification of statistics and studies, as well as the
assessment of whether these activities could be carried out on a continuing basis, could be codified in view of
the setting up of the full-scale operational system.
Similar tools existing outside Europe, namely on the National Science Foundation, will be analysed
and benchmarked.
Operational Phase
The first prototyping phase will be followed by a stop-or-go decision. If the operational phase is
launched, it will last for 15 months.
Once fully operational, a European “sustainable” Integrated Information System will be based on the
integration of different country-based (national or sectoral) data surveys into a common framework. It will
provide a dynamic overview, both in the public and private sectors, of researchers' stocks, in- and outflows,
career paths, geographical and inter-sectoral mobility. The system will include the data listed previously.
At this stage, the structure and operational mode of the Integrated Information System are not defined
yet. However, in order to monitor researchers’ stocks, inflows, outflows, as well as their career paths and
mobility, three main functions will be needed:
• a permanent Inventory Function of available information,
• an Intelligence Service Function that analyses the information collected and
• a New Data Collection Function.
The “inventory” will provide an overview of available quantitative and qualitative information on
researchers, stocks, career paths and mobility flows, at Member State, European and international level. It will
present the available surveys and studies as well as their results by country and at the international level as
well as an easy-access Directory including information and useful links on research centres, European
Networks, websites, projects on this research field in the EU and abroad, etc.
The “intelligence service” will:
• Identify the trends and tendencies on the basis of available data and research results in Europe;
• Indicate relevant information gaps by country and for the European region;
• Supply comparative information on trends at the international level, especially flows from, to and
within the major trading partners (such as USA, Japan and China, Canada etc);
• Report on science policy issues relevant to the career paths and mobility of researchers’ within the
global labour market.
The “New Data Collection Function” will be designed to fill specific information gaps once they are properly
identified.
A major challenge is to design this system so as to allow regular updating and upgrading. An
adequate web-interface will be developed to make the results available to a wide audience. Regular and
ongoing syntheses and analyses on career and mobility trends, including results of new data surveys and
research projects, will be completed and disseminated.
Last but not least, it is expected that this sustained effort in this field within the European
Commission and its network of partners will contribute to a better awareness of the need for better statistics
and facilitate the transfer of best practises across Europe. Ultimately, a harmonised standard of statistics on
researchers, research personnel and Human Resources in S&T will emerge.
Synergy with Other Studies
Some partially overlapping studies are ongoing and it is intended to create synergies between them.
In particular, one relevant study addresses the role of networking in University-based research. It envisages
the circulation of brains and ideas in a context of changing knowledge production process, emergence of
knowledge-intensive communities and increasing need for inter-disciplinary approach. The objective is to
correlate the mobility of PhD students and young researchers between institutions and research teams to the
collaboration examined from the co-publications and co-references on the web. The data collected in the
frame of this study on doctoral students and post-docs are relevant for the Integrated Information System and
ought to be integrated.
Another ongoing study analyses the major changes of the financing modes of research within
universities (decrease of public funding, growing diversity of income sources, growing share of funding
32
attributed on a competitive and performance-related basis, increased importance of directed or earmarked
grants, introduction of mechanisms enhancing transparency) and the consequences for the activities and
output, for the researchers (more competitive and entrepreneurial attitude, increasing accountability,
investment of considerable energy and time in marketing their activities, increasing flexibility in research
projects, lack of adequate support because of the shortage of administrative staff and skill training, feelings of
de-motivation, destabilisation and insecurity) and for the society as a whole (waste of public money as
researchers have less time for research and teaching, disproportionate effect of competitive or third-party
funding on research strategy and programmes, possibly quality decline, less really innovative and long-term
basic research, “privatisation” of research outcomes which have been carried out in public institutions and
partially financed by public money). In a similar way, a major characteristic of this project is that it aims at
providing disaggregated information and strategic analysis on university-based research at the level of
individual institutions, whereas aggregated information at country level are relatively widely available.
Such issues will be envisaged in collaboration with the European Forum8 of the Robert Schuman
Centre for Advanced Studies of the European University Institute as the research theme for 2004-05 is 'The
Role of Universities in the Innovation Systems'.
Another relevant project concerns the convergence of nanotechnologies, biology, information
technologies and cognitive science, which is also referred to as NBIC [Roco Bainbridge 2002]. It directly
addresses the problematic of trans-disciplinary research and clearly one of the major bottlenecks from Europe
to keep pace with the US in the availability of adequate scientific workforce and the creation of transdisciplinary higher-education and research structure.
References
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Canberra Manual - The Measurement of Scientific and
Technological Activities, Manual on the Measurement of Human Resources Devoted to S&T, OCDE/GD(95)77,
Paris 1995, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/0/2096025.pdf
Roco M.C., Bainbridge W.S. (eds) (1996), Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, Nano-,
Bio-, Info- Technology and Cognitive Science, National Science Foundation.
8
http://www.iue.it/RSCAS/Research/EuropeanForum/Index.shtml
33
The postdoctoral trap: A challenge for science and policy
Guntram Bauer
Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP)
Strasbourg, France
gbauer@hfsp.org
Abstract
The scientific landscape has changed dramatically during the past few years. Historically separated disciplines have
merged into new and fast moving research areas using interdisciplinary approaches. In consequence the training of
postdoctoral researchers should be much broader so as to provide these young scientists with adequate skills and
knowledge to make significant contributions in these new fields. Interdisciplinary training should also be
complemented by programs that support the important career transition to scientific independence. Indeed, support
should not stop at the point where a young investigator has succeeded in securing funds to establish his independent
research team. At that point many young investigators need further help and advice as they are confronted with new
tasks such as the recruitment of personnel, grant writing, and administrative duties. Creative support, specifically
attuned to the needs of postdocs and young investigators, is essential to ensure a source of scientific excellence in
the future.
Introduction
The last decade has seen the emergence of new and fast moving research areas, which has led to the
merging of previously separated research disciplines. These developments have emphasised the need for
interdisciplinary approaches to basic science (e.g. proteomics, computational biology, nanotechnology).
However, the training of students and young scientists has not kept pace with these changes and even at
present does not meet the expectations of science and society. To this end a recent report by the HFSP and the
ESF on the training of young scientists in the natural sciences made very clear recommendations9. The
changes in science should be complemented by training programs that better reflect the changes from
discipline-driven to problem-oriented research. In addition there is a growing need for scientifically “fluent”
people outside of experimental research who can understand, communicate and act on issues that are related to
scientific problems.
Young scientists at the postdoctoral level are particularly concerned by these developments because it
is in this career phase that the foundation for scientific excellence is built, and at this stage many young
scientists are looking to establish themselves as independent researchers. However when starting postdoctoral
work the level of complexity of a scientific career increases. Young scientists become aware of important
issues such as the availability of support programs for interdisciplinary training, employment prospects (at the
end of the postdoc), the transition to scientific independence, the choice (or lack of it) between non-tenured
positions and employment for life, or simply the basic problems of generally mobile researchers (as
employees). Becoming a postdoc is an important step because at that point decisions have to be made that can
shift a career into one direction or another. Following the framework of the HFSP/ESF report this article
emphasises some of the critical issues in relation to interdisciplinary training, scientific independence and
characterises the type of support programs ideally suited to help postdoctoral researchers. Much of the
evidence to be presented derives from observations from the HFSP fellowship program, which was initiated in
1990. For conciseness, no special consideration will be given to gender balance and to the particular situation
of scientists from the humanities or social sciences in this article. However many of the problems and
solutions discussed by the author – a life scientist – are equally relevant for other scientific disciplines.
9
The Pipeline and the Tree: Towards a New Paradigm for Education, Training, and Career Paths in the Natural Sciences. HFSP/ESF Position
Paper, www.hfsp.org.
34
The postdoctoral period
While improvements in PhD training have been achieved through graduate schools, improved
supervision and support structures, the career prospects for postdocs are rather slim. The few long-term
opportunities available in basic research may explain the limited interest of students for a scientific career as is
evident from the small annual growth in PhD degrees in many countries10. Making matters worse, even this
small growth in doctoral degrees has not been matched by an increase in the number of tenured positions
available, which indeed in some countries has decreased simultaneously. As a consequence the academic
system is out of balance as recent Ph.D.s and young postdocs are trying to make their way up the career ladder
without finding enough vacancies at the top end. Thus the postdoctoral period has become a bottleneck. There
is a growing population of postdocs that are trapped at this level who are seeking tenured positions or are
applying for jobs in other fields and eventually will try all and every possible solution to find employment.
If you ask scientists ‘what should a postdoc be all about?’ you will probably get as many different
answers as the number of scientists you ask. Heads of departments, mentors, and postdocs all have their own
ideas about this period of research training. However, individual ideas about the postdoctoral experience to a
large degree reflect thinking within the traditional boundaries of scientific disciplines. The only general
consensus seems to be that the postdoctoral time should be a highly productive period during which a young
scientist carries out excellent research and publishes the results. On the more personal side it is not
unreasonable to expect that this period should also be a happy time. A high percentage of young postdocs
decide to train in a foreign country where just being in a new environment is exciting and the changes in their
day to day experience widen their cultural horizons.
Interdisciplinary research training
For a scientist training rarely ends because technologies and knowledge advance continuously. Fast
moving research areas such as molecular and cellular biology depend increasingly on input from the physical
sciences, and as the subjects develop the training of young scientists must be adapted and improved. It is
apparent that working simply within the narrow boundaries of traditional disciplines will not further our
understanding of fundamental processes. In supporting young scientists in the life sciences, the HFSP
encourages postdocs from different disciplines to seek broader training. By asking applicants for postdoctoral
fellowships to make a significant change in research direction and to move to a foreign country the fellowship
program encourages both the broadening of experimental skills and the increased readiness of young scientists
to work abroad. However, postdoctoral researchers themselves are increasingly exploring ways to broaden
their scientific basis by carefully selecting their training environment, and ‘directive’ application guidelines
are not always necessary. In recent years the number of HFSP fellows that chose two host supervisors with
complementary research expertise has increased sharply. Developments in other research areas, such as
biophysics, suggested ways to further improve this fellowship program. While young scientists from physics
or chemistry were a rarity in the past, HFSP believes that the contribution of researchers from the physical
sciences in biological research should be much more prominent. To this end the HFSP has extended its
fellowship program so as to encourage applicants with a degree in physics, chemistry, computational science,
engineering, mathematics or material sciences, who wish to move into biology, to apply for a CrossDisciplinary Fellowship.
Moving from the classical postdoctoral training towards a much more interdisciplinary training has
significant consequences, some of which have not yet been fully appreciated. A revision of the perception of
postdoctoral studies is likely to affect the close interrelation between the postdoc, the mentor and the host
institution. Research training may take longer, mentors may need to invest more time and host institutions will
need to provide appropriate research facilities. From the institutional side, one possible way to offer
conditions that are more attuned to the demand for interdisciplinary training of young scientists could be the
EMBO Young Investigator model. With this attractive award EMBO enhances the modest financial support of
the young investigators through networking opportunities and access to EMBO infrastructures so as to
increase their skills in particular fields. Importantly the support is not restricted to the awardee but also
includes training opportunities for students hired by the Young Investigator.
10
Key Data on Education in Europe, 2002, European Commission/EURYDICE/Eurostat
35
Acquiring independence
Without a successful postdoctoral development of research skills and knowledge, the prospect of a
successful scientific career is hampered. Many postdocs hope to set up their own independent research team
but few postdocs really learn how to work independently. In this regard it would be helpful if mentors
encouraged senior postdocs to initiate their own independent research project near the end of their fellowship,
thereby giving them the opportunity for experimentation and increased responsibility. Provided the postdocmentor relationship is intact, an independent project could prove to be a valuable test for the young scientist.
Figure 1: Summary of support offered to postdoctoral researchers within the stage model of the
University of North Carolina (USA). All stages are flexible and can be adjusted for specific
conditions depending on scientific discipline or research project. Individual postdocs may move
forward and backward depending on their personal/working circumstances, but they should
definitely emerge at some point having made the transition to independence, if this is their career
goal. Each stage is also influenced by the support that each postdoc receives from the
supervisor/mentor and the length and duration of each stage naturally depends on the individual’s
progress.
With increasing experience a young scientist should also be given the opportunity to acquire skills
that are essential for managing an independent research group. Postdoctoral career support at the institutional
level could be achieved e.g. with a developmental approach similar to that proposed by the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill11. This model is characterised by specific entry and exit points, thus having a
beginning and a definitive end for the postdoc period. Four support stages are offered covering the needs
during the different phases of the postdoctoral period. In each stage postdocs are offered a variety of training
sessions/workshops/symposia on important issues that they need to master on the way to independence. A
support system of this kind needs input from both scientists and the administration. The resources offered may
run as semester long courses, block training, seminars, or involve individual counselling if the scientific
supervisor is unwilling for the postdoc to participate in the formal sessions. The topics should cover all
possible fields that concern postdocs (see Fig. 1).
If an institutional network of the above kind is not available, there may be other means. An Individual
Development Plan (IDP) as suggested by the Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology
(FASEB)12 basically contains many, if not all, of the items listed in the above model but is reduced to the
individual level. The most important difference however is that the IDP involves a self evaluation by the
postdoc who writes down his/her individual career and training goals, the improvements necessary to achieve
11
12
http://postdocs.unc.edu/ops.htm
http://www.faseb.org/opar/ppp/educ/idp.html
36
those goals, and then implements specific steps rather than relying on a random sampling of knowledge and
information to reach those goals. Thus an IDP sets out specific goals, reviews the tools available, and sets
milestones along the way to achieve the objectives. This process occurs individually and is not “controlled”
externally. Therefore there is a danger of self-deception and its success heavily depends on the relation
between the postdoc and the mentor, and notably the willingness of the latter to support the plan.
Support for the transition to scientific independence
If securing a postdoctoral position is critical the following step from postdoc to group leader is even
more important because it represents the start of scientific independence – the goal of many researchers.
Common features in such ‘start-up’ positions are a mid-term budget that allows the employment of
PhDs/postdocs and a technician, lab space and support for supplies, and an independent research project.
However even in this phase the majority of scientists still need career support, e.g. help with recruitment of
lab personnel. Attracting the best candidates for such positions requires that support programs are available
that provide a continuum covering as many career steps as possible. Organising a support system is further
complicated by the fact that it should operate internationally both providing support for the outward mobility
of nationals as well as inward mobility for non-nationals (e.g. from developing countries).
In this regard several new programs have been started in recent years such as the Emmy Noether
Program (DFG, Germany), the Career Development Program (Burroghs-Wellcome Trust, USA), Young
Investigator schemes such as the EURYI Award (ESF for the EU), the aforementioned EMBO award and
many more. Some programs support both the postdoc and the group leader phase while others fund the group
leader phase only on the condition of a return to the home country (HFSP Career Development Award, DFG
Emmy Noether). A characteristic of many of these awards is that the first postdoctoral phase must be taken
abroad. Individual programs differ in the maximum length of the postdoctoral versus the group leader phase.
Young scientists who decide to use interdisciplinary approaches in their research probably face the
greatest difficulties in finding appropriate support because of their needs for special infrastructure facilities.
The HFSP introduced a Career Development Award (CDA) to offer initial support to former fellows when
setting up their independent research team in their home country. If successfully combined a HFSP fellowship
and CDA provide career support that may span up to 8 years (see Fig. 2). In addition, while receiving CDA
support, awardees are eligible to apply for an HFSP Young Investigator Grant or other third party funding to
further secure the future of their independent research group.
Figure 2: Summary of the career support for postdoctoral researchers in the HFSP program.
Postdoctoral candidates may apply for a fellowship up to three years after their Ph.D. If the host
supervisor finds additional support the fellow may defer the 3rd fellowship year for up to two
calendar years. Fellows who decide to repatriate during or at the end of their 3rd fellowship year are
eligible to apply for a Career Development Award (CDA) intended to support the implementation
of an independent research group in their home country. While under CDA support young
investigators are eligible to apply for an HFSP Young Investigator Grant or other project support.
37
Employment prospects and career guidance
Apart from support directly related to the research work, a postdoc who contemplates a career in
science should be provided with further learning resources. While many more diverse opportunities for
employment emerged in recent years, many PhDs still want to pursue a career in academic research. This is
despite the fact that there are well-recognised problems in scientific careers, such as initial employment
insecurity, poor financial benefits, the problems of combining family and work, and poor career management.
A fundamental challenge for young researchers is always the problem of planning for the future, which is
even more complicated for young researchers who have a family or couples where both partners work in an
academic research environment. In this context a staggering statistic from a recent survey on Japanese and
German graduates illustrates a fundamental problem13. The majority of graduates start looking for job
alternatives and career opportunities far too late, some even after their graduation. This lack of foresight is a
major shortcoming of young scientists and probably simply reflects their inexperience. A career in academic
research is not such a fast-selling item as it was in the past but is as difficult to achieve as in other areas. Some
of the major shortcomings in terms of employment status, social benefits, and hiring practice have been
identified e.g. by the Association of American Universities14 or the National Postdoc Association15. Many of
these could be overcome through an improved institutional support network in the form of a human resource
management that is adapted to the demands of postdocs. Such a development would give a new dimension of
responsibility to both the young scientist and the research institution (or department)16, as long as the scheme
includes much more than just providing short term solutions to cope with a transient lack of funding. Being
‘mentored’ in such a way should result in the build-up of self-confidence and reduce the general feeling of
insecurity with respect to the institutional environment and future perspectives. It may also foster motivation
and productive efficiency in the laboratory. With such a support a young scientist can draw up a well-defined
career plan that will provide a better perspective, increase notions of research quality, and set performance
incentives.
The present situation of postdoctoral researchers is far from ideal. Exciting advances on the research
side are not matched by improvements in terms of career development and support. However improvements
will probably not come on the global scale. Occasionally new solutions are created at the local or regional
level such as the recent implementation of a common health plan for all postdocs of the University of
California system17. Indeed regional initiatives may be advantageous because academic systems differ
significantly between countries. Another example of an initiative being tested is the incorporation of postdocs
in a local labour union. This is a highly sensitive area that separates supporters and opponents right down the
middle – sometimes in the very same laboratory. The University of Connecticut Health Center (UCHC) was
one of the first to offer postdocs such a possibility and postdocs voted to join the union in March 2004. The
expected changes are improved pay and benefits and the establishment of a minimum postdoc salary. In this
regard it is noteworthy that these recent improvements for postdocs are taking place in the American system,
which improves the situation of many European postdocs working in the USA. The problems of young
scientists in Europe have also been identified18, but initiatives in the European research landscape, historically
dominated by public universities, may take longer to produce results.
Conclusions
Young scientists deserve continuous support that reflects the recent changes in science and
technology. Many occupational fields depend on broadly trained scientists and it is timely to revise our
perception of science and accept it as a professional career. A change in our attitude will become critical
because of the predicted shortcomings in the number of scientists in major economies such as Japan, Europe
and the USA within the next two decades. However, to motivate more students to contemplate a research
career we must deprive science of its reputation of being an ‘all or nothing’ approach, in which only a
minority is successful, by offering a more sophisticated support that reflects the current situation. In many
13
H Schomburg, U. Teichler (2002): Employment and Work of University Graduates in Japan and Germany. In: Challenges of the 21st Century
in Japan and Germany. U Teichler, G. Trommsdorff (Eds.). Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich.
14
See the AAU Postdoctoral Education Report at www.aau.edu/reports/PostdocRpt.html
15
See www.nationalpostdoc.org
16
D. Müller-Böling: Personalentwicklung in Verantwortung der Fachbereiche. Hochschule Innovativ, Februar 2004.
17
See Science (2005) 307:843 for a short news brief.
18
The mobility of academic researchers. Academic careers & recruitment in ICT and Biotechnology. A report by ipts, The Joint Research Centre
of the European Commission. Report EUR 19905 EN (2001).
38
ways postdocs represent a critical mass of talent that deserves more attention. Increasing application numbers
in internationally leading support programs are unambiguous evidence that young scientists are well
motivated to seek broad training in foreign countries. However those who decide to train abroad must compete
with less adventurous colleagues who remain in their initial laboratories with better access to the scientific
community at home. In this sense support for the initial step to scientific independence should be increased so
as to bridge a critical gap in scientific careers.
Acknowledgements
The comments on content, structure, and style received by Torsten Wiesel, Martin Reddington and
Geoffrey Richards on earlier versions of the manuscript are gratefully acknowledged.
39
Governance of Young Scientists' Associations: The World Academy of Young
Scientists
Péter Kerey
World Academy of Young Scientists
Budapest, Hungary
ways@sztaki.hu
Martin Naef
Digital Design Studio, Glasgow School of Art
Glasgow, UK
mnaef@acm.org
Abstract
Following up on the initial idea to create the International Forum of Young Scientists back in 1999, the World
Academy of Young Scientists (WAYS) was founded in 2003. WAYS brings together scientists in their early stages
of their career from all over the world. After an initial startup phase, the first truly international General Assembly
was held in Marrakesh during December 11th-13th, 2004, which firmly established the association and its structure.
This article explains the history and motivation behind the foundation of WAYS, and elaborates on the principles
behind the structure chosen.
Keywords: WAYS, World Academy of Young Scientists, governance.
Introduction
In addition to freedom of speech and freedom of print, the freedom of assembly and freedom of
association are among the basic rights in a democratic society. If the intention is to have developing and
strengthening democracy, society needs independent organisations/groups that can raise their concerns and
voice their opinion. These associations represent the interests and opinions of groups of people towards the
institutions, government and other decision making bodies.
The right to form associations gives people the opportunity to participate in democratic processes at
their institutions or offices, on both national or international level. In “new democracies” or in countries where
democratic rights are limited, these associations play a very important role establishing the framework and
developing democracy within society. In traditionally democratic societies, associations or unions are also
important in the area of education, a place where the younger generation is socialized, learns and understands
democratic processes and tradition. Through this involvement people also practice democracy and become
important stakeholders in the society in general. Of course, there are several areas or aspects of life that are
hierarchic rather then democratic traditionally, even in democratic societies.
If a certain group of people have issues or problems they want to be solved, they can join their forces
in an association and can have more power - manpower - to realize their goals and ideas and can put more
pressure on their counterparts.
How to participate?
When establishing an association, there must be a genuine wish from the members to create an
independent forum. They need to have clear aims and visions for what they want to achieve. Aims and visions
must be supported with a strategy and a feasible plan of actions for at least a one year period. It is also very
important to identify the possible counterparts and (political) partners.
If there are well defined (mostly political) counterparts and the members have mostly the same
common interests, the activity of the association will be mainly political (representing political interests,
40
welfare issues), and the whole association will work like a trade union. The association should have a
basically hierarchical, centralised structure to fulfil these tasks, where a relatively small number of active
members govern the (in the ideal case) very well focused actions in the name of the other members.
Information is exchanged between the central of the association and the members. The main motivation here
to be a member is that the more members the association has the more political influence can be gained.
Members will therefore strengthen the weight of the association simply by the fact of their membership and
profit from the results achieved by the work of the governing bodies, given that these indeed represent their
genuine interests.
When the interests are more complex and diverse, the range of activity is much wider (for example
international). Political partners are no longer the same for all of the members. Political aims and activities
cannot be represented effectively, therefore becoming less important. The common interest of the members is
something beyond local politics, typically connected to their profession. The main motivation to be a member
in such associations is that members contribute something to the association (share their information,
knowledge, results), and can benefit from similar contributions of other members. The structure of the
association is organized as a network, the activity of the members expected to be high, and a very important
part of the association's activity is the self-governing information exchange of the members.
The structure of the association must be democratic, separated to different levels (local, national, etc.)
where work can be done effectively. This can also reflect to the activities of the association, support the
actions, and divide responsibilities. The democratic structure defines elected positions with responsibilities,
but of course not every task can be covered by the elected officers. For particular actions workgroups can be
established that are accountable to the main organs of the association.
One of the key issues for every association is to recruit members. A successful association has to
reach a critical mass, as this is needed to gain the recognition from the partners and to get sufficient human
resources to work in it. The first step is to define the possible members. For young scientists' associations
there are three basic questions: who can be considered as “young”, who can be considered as “scientist”, and
who can be considered as a “young scientist”?
A successful strategy, defining membership and convincing people to be a member is essential. The
most critical period is the first few months, where the forming association needs the members, and not the
members need the association. Later on, after the first successes, people who want to benefit from the work of
the association will find it on their own.
To have members is not the same as to have active members. “Simple” members may increase the
critical mass and look good on paper, but without active, working members, the association will not be able to
survive on the long term. Therefore, it is crucial to find those people who are willing to play any kind of active
role in the association. This needs close contacts with the members, and a constant flow of information.
It is also essential to provide and gain enough information and an appropriate infrastructure. Keeping
members constantly informed will strengthen the contacts with them, ensures a shorter reaction time, and
makes the decision-making process transparent. Information that is provided for the members can also serve
as a main motivating force increasing the number of members.
The sign of the existence of an association inside the society is its public presence. Therefore the
action plan should have elements that are not only for the members, but for other people as well. The
communication of the actions, contacts with the society, external relations with as many possible partners as
possible, public initiatives that can be connected to the association are among the main tools. This will
increase the recognition from the partners and the society, which is needed in order to do a successful job.
Funding is vital to run an association of any kind. Support from members, governments, partner
institutions, is all needed. In general, actions and projects can be sponsored or financed through grant
applications. Sources are plenty: foundations, government institutions, or international organisations usually
have resources supporting such kind of activities. Core activity (administration, general assemblies, elections,
etc) of the association on the other hand, should be funded from internal sources or from the overhead of the
support for other activities. That is why it is essential to find some project ideas that are attractive for the
members as well as the possible sponsors.
World Academy of Young Scientists: The Permanent Global Network of Young Scientists
Science and Technology (S&T) are an integral and essential part of our present and future.
Paradoxically, science is seen as remote and inaccessible by a majority of young people in both developed and
developing countries. The public increasingly perceives scientific endeavours as enigmas, doubts are
expressed about the intrinsic beneficial function of science and knowledge, and dwindling numbers of youth
opt for research.
41
The scientific community recognizes that the vitality of S&T can be assured only by developing the
next generation of young scientists. Major challenges to scientific talent development are identifying ways to
make science more attractive and accessible to young people, and generating a research climate that allows for
creativity, open communication, and free flows of ideas and talents.
The need to promote a scientifically literate and educated world community of young scientists was
acknowledged at the 1999 International Forum of Young Scientists (IFYS). 150 young scientists from 57
countries gathered for this forum, and decided to create a network committed to the promotion of science
worldwide. The network intended to provide a continuous voice to sensitize scientific institutions and
decision-makers to the necessity of creating opportunities for young researchers in S&T, and actively
involving young scientists in shaping science policy.
UNESCO envisaged a threefold strategy to support projects
1) for young scientists, such as training, fellowships and scholarships;
2) with young scientists, involving them as equal partners and focusing on the full use of their visions,
competencies, experiences and potential in meeting scientific challenges;
3) designed and implemented by young scientists.
The outcome of the meeting was a statement addressed to the World Conference on Science, which
among others said:
“The participants of the Forum established the International Forum of Young Scientists as a continuous
platform to discuss general issues and challenges to science. They hope that the World Conference on Science
will recognize this new body, and request that UNESCO and ICSU involve the Forum in their ongoing
programmes.”
The main points of the statement were:
•
“The participants of the Forum also recommend that:
•
Scientists increase their responsibility to inform the public openly about research and its wider
implications and therefore learn communication skills;
•
Science education at all levels be strengthened and scientists collaborate with educators;
•
Education presents science in a cross-disciplinary manner;
•
Ethical aspects be a part of all scientific undertaking and that a special focus on ethics be included in all
education programmes;
•
Scientists take full responsibility to provide help to the scientific communities in less developed
countries and urge their governments to support long-term grants for fundamental research to maintain
sustainable growth;
•
Scientists assume increased responsibility for environment and development programmes;
•
Young scientists participate in decisions made about science.”
In 2000, as a follow-up, the European Forum for Young Scientists was organized in Gdansk by
UNESCO and MCFA, and finished with a report and resolution submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe.
In 2002 a foundation was established in Szeged, Hungary to support the creation of the forum, and in
2003 the board of the foundation suggested to change the name “International Forum of Young Scientists” to
“World Academy of Young Scientists (WAYS)”. A secretariat for WAYS was established in August 2003.
And since then, there is a permanent contact point for those who want to reach the association. The organising
committee of the World Science Forum 2003 invited young scientists to take part on the forum and with the
help of the Tercentenary Foundation of the Swedish National Bank, and the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
the WAYS secretariat managed to convene 35 young scientists from 20 countries to participate on the forum.
The highlight of the closing plenary session was the presentation of four young scientists. It was announced
there that young scientists were about to create a permanent global network for the young scientific
community that provides regular input into decision-making on science and technology.
Now, after the 1st General Conference of WAYS which was held in Marrakech on 12 - 13. December
2004, WAYS has more than 1000 members from nearly 100 countries from every continent. Members can be
everybody aged between 15 and 40 years, studying, teaching, or practising science at an early stage of their
careers.
The problems young scientists facing to on international level are mostly connected to their career.
They have to face many obstacles during the years of education. The list below shows some of the main
problems young scientists face in the different age-groups.
42
Age 15-18: First signs of talent, of interest in science:
• mostly local schools
• no access to labs
• quality of education varies widely
At 18: Decision on higher education:
• lack of orientation
University students:
• mostly mass education in the universities
• limited range of education at many higher education institutions
• often no time and possibility for research
• mobility (international – lack of information, credit transfer, and internationally recognized diploma)
Postgraduates:
• first steps in research: dependency on others
• mobility (international - losing contacts with home institutions, mobility schemes are often seem to
promote mobility for mobility’s sake)
Post-docs:
• finally on their own (transitional state between dependency-independency)
• job-market
• intersectorial mobility
• lack of permanent positions (scholarships until 60?)
• eventually returning home
To respond to the enormous amount of tasks, WAYS created a parallel structure, the political
organisations based on regions where members are represented by country delegates, and the Scientific
Departments, where profession is the most important distinguishing factor.
Regionality is especially supported by the Regional Units of WAYS. They are comprised of the
members coming from a certain geographic region and facing similar problems. These units help members
join forces to solve specific, local problems.
Every member of WAYS can be a member of a Scientific Department. These departments organize
the professional activity of the members: organizing conferences, workshops, courses, providing research
contacts for the members. A good example is the Medical and Life Sciences Department which contributes to
the BioVision.Next 2005 to be held in Lyon this April. The next big event WAYS is involved in is the World
Science Forum 2005. The section with the title “Educating Future Generations” will be organized in cooperation with WAYS.
WAYS aims to provide several different services to its members. A mentorship programme is
organized to help young scientists (especially in secondary schools) get in contact with science. Members can
register into the programme, providing their fields of interest. Mentors studying or working on that particular
field will help them to get special education, information, or lab access. Even for secondary school students
there is a possibility to participate in serious research programmes through the programme. As a very
important principle, we expect our members to help others who are in a younger age-group.
As 21st century science crosses national and disciplinary boundaries, mobility of young scientists
becomes a key issue. Mobility provides excellent possibilities to broaden the skills by working in related
fields and at the same time collecting experience in a different cultural environment, but students often face
very basic problems. A network of mobility contact persons will help our members to get information about
the country they will visit well before arriving there. These contact persons are local WAYS members, and
therefore can give the most suited and practical information, and are willing to help in any issues.
Young scientists, living and working abroad, representing a highly-educated, multi-lingual
community with a broad international experience, could be a great asset in the intellectual development of
their native country. Countries can only become competitive through efficiently and internationally
capitalizing on their human capital and through supporting those who wish to return. On the other hand, many
young scientists wishing to return home (especially those coming from economically less developed
countries) face huge obstacles. Co-operating with and promotion of schemes aiming to help young people
returning to their native countries will help WAYS-members to find their place when their mobility grant is
over.
To decrease the dependency of young scientist from others, WAYS intends to be a virtual meeting
point for young scientists, where members can improve their general knowledge by receiving cutting-edge
43
information on scientific breakthroughs and real-world applications from all over the world; meet people with
first-hand knowledge of the latest developments in different scientific fields; have the broadest possible access
to the international circle of young colleagues, the professional community, and their research findings and get
acquainted with diverse points of view on scientific topics and exchange opinions. Our database on members,
grants, or events can also help those who want to create new contacts for their research.
Beyond the databases WAYS publishes a quarterly newsletter with up-to date information on its
global network and young scientists issues. The virtual library and exhibition pages provide opportunity for
young scientists to introduce themselves. All information is published on the Virtual WAYS portal on the
Web, under the www.waysnet.org address and accessible for WAYS-members.
If you think important
• to give young scientists from all regions of the world the opportunity to discuss present and future
issues concerning science and technology;
• the situation and role of young scientists with regard to the profound changes in the scientific
environment, major scientific and technological achievements, structural changes in many countries,
and new perspectives for worldwide scientific co-operation;
• to reinforce recognition of the need to involve young scientists in the science and technology policymaking process, introducing the active role of young scientists as agents of change in science policy;
• to make future-oriented recommendations to decision-makers, scientific institutions etc;
• to discuss the contribution of science in fostering the dialogue among civilizations;
please feel free to contact us on our website (www.waysnet.org) or by e-mail (ways@sztaki.hu).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Euroscience and the Marie Curie Fellowship Association for their
support during the Euroscience Open Forum 2004 in Stockholm. We would also like to acknowledge the
continued support from UNESCO, the ISESCO, the Third World Academy of Sciences, and the International
Council for Science.
44
European employment market for researchers: Challenges and opportunities,
some achievements and new instruments
Sigi Gruber
European Commission, Directorate General Research,
Policy and Strategy for Mobility and Human Resources
Brussels, Belgium
Sieglinde.Gruber@cec.eu.int
Abstract
An abundant supply of highly trained researchers is a prerequisite to meet Europe’s ambitious policy objectives,
which are: to build the European Research Area, to make Europe the most dynamic and competitive knowledge
economy in the world, and to increase investment in research to an average of 3% of GDP. A number of major
achievements and milestones were attained so far: As the fruit of a public consultation process the Commission
adopted a “Recommendation on the European Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the
Recruitment of Researchers”19. As regards admission and residence of third country researchers, an important step
forward was taken when a package of legal instruments, consisting of a proposal for a Directive and two
Recommendations, was adopted by the Commission in 200420; these instruments are due to be adopted in the
course of 2005. And finally, the 2005 “Researchers in Europe Initiative” is expected to be an important campaign to
raise public awareness of the researchers’ profession by focusing the attention of the public at large on a wide range
of different events and activities, organised at European level as well as nationally, regionally and locally
throughout Europe
Policy context
Europe needs researchers. One of the major policy developments since the beginning of the
millennium is the increasing perception that the provision of abundant and highly trained human resources in
research is paramount to the European Union’s (EU’s) ability to meet its ambitious challenges. This
perception arose as a consequence of three major political developments:
•
•
•
The launch of the European Research Area, in January 2000, which provides for the first time a
general framework for the designing of an overall ambition for European research.
The commitment by the Heads of State and Government, in Lisbon, in March 2000, to make “Europe
the most dynamic and competitive knowledge economy in the world by 2010”.
The commitment taken at the European Council in Barcelona (March 2002) to raise the investment in
research in the EU to an average of 3 % of the member states’ GDP, two-thirds of which to originate
from the private sector.
Each of these commitments has clear implications on human resources in research. For example,
abundant and highly trained researchers are not only a necessary condition to advance science and to underpin
innovation, but also an important factor to attract and sustain investments in research by public and private
entities. Next to that the Commission has estimated that the fulfilment of the 3% objective alone would
require a further 600,000 to 700,000 researchers, in addition to the resources needed to replace rapidly the
ageing workforce in European research.
Fulfilling Europe’s ambitious policy objectives cannot be achieved without a broad and integrated
strategy involving all stakeholders concerned, and taking stock of the changing environment in which research
is pursued. Against the background of a growing competition at world level, the EU’s strategy regarding
19
C(2005) 576 final of 11.3.2005.
“Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the presentation of a proposal for a directive and
two proposals for recommendations on the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European community”
COM(2004)178 final of 16.03.2004.
20
45
human resources in R&D has concentrated on making Europe more attractive to the best researchers. This is
done by stimulating people to enter into the researcher’s profession, by encouraging European researchers to
stay in Europe, and by attracting researchers from the entire world to Europe. The ultimate aim of this strategy
is to develop an open trans-European labour market for researchers with attractive career prospects,
supporting a beneficial “brain circulation”, thereby limiting “brain drain” both within Europe and in a global
setting.
To attain these objectives, the EU’s integrated strategy focuses on three main lines:
•
•
•
To substantially increase the EU funding for the training, mobility and career development of
researchers, the so-called ‘Marie Curie Actions’,
To improve the overall environment for researchers in Europe by enhancing mobility and removing
obstacles,
To foster the career development of researchers, thereby enhancing the EU’s attractiveness for
research talent from Europe and from all over the world.
The European Commission has taken initiatives in all these areas, extending in the Sixth Framework
Programme for RTD21 financial opportunities (with a 70% budget rise compared to FP5) for training and
mobility throughout the career of researchers, next to a substantial opening up of the actions to non-European
researchers and taking into account systematically the issue of return and career (re)integration.
Next to that the Commission, in its 2001 Communication “A Mobility Strategy for the ERA”22,
supported by the Council23, has identified concrete actions both at Community and at national level, to value
mobility as a key instrument for the career development of researchers. Since the adoption of the Mobility
Strategy in 2001, considerable achievements can be reported, mainly in the field of creating more favourable
conditions for mobile researchers.
A further impulse was given in 2003 by the actions addressing at European level the researcher’s
profession, career prospects and the career development of researchers, outlined in the Commission
Communication “Researchers in the European Research Area: One profession, multiple careers”24. In
addition, following the Barcelona Spring Council of 2002, the Commission had published the 3% Investment
Action Plan25 which contains a series of actions concerning human resources and mobility in R&D, aimed at
supporting the necessary increase in the number of researchers in Europe, drawing on the Mobility Strategy
and the outline of the Career Communication. In 2003 the Council adopted Resolutions on both the Career
Communication and the 3% Investment Action Plan.
While supporting both the Career Communication26 as well as the 3% Investment Action Plan27 in
2003, the Council underlined in 2004 at several occasions the importance of pursuing the Lisbon objectives
with more common determination, which implies a reinforced effort to make Europe more attractive to
researchers: “Human resources are critical for R&D and priority must be given to training, retention and
mobility of researchers.” And: “The European Council urges that work proceed quickly, inter alia, on the
following: … encouragement for the mobility of researchers, as an example of practical action to further
stimulate innovation.”28
In its Communication “Science and Technology, the key to Europe’s future – Guidelines for future
European Union policy to support research”29, published in June 2004, the Commission reiterated the need to
increase the number of researchers in Europe from currently 6 to 8 for 1.000 labour force as a target
corresponding to the 3% objective. It also stressed the European Union’s objective to promote the
development of European scientific careers, at the same time helping to make sure that researchers stay in
Europe as well as to attract the best researchers to Europe. This was also underlined in the report “Europe
needs more scientists” by the High Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology
in Europe 2004, chaired by Prof. José Mariano Gago30, with an analysis of the current situation and a number
21
Decision No 1513/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 concerning the Sixth Framework Programme of
the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European
Research Area and to innovation (2002 to 2006).
22
COM(2001)331 final of 20.6.2001, hereinafter referred to as “Mobility Strategy”.
23
Council Resolution of 10.12.2001, OJ C 367
24
COM(2003) 436 final of 18.7.2003, hereinafter referred to as “Career Communication”.
25
COM(2003) 226 final of 30.4.2003
26
Council Resolution of 10.11.2003, OJ C 282.
27
Council Resolution of 22.9.2003, OJ C 250
28
Presidency Conclusions European Council of 17-18 June 2004
29
COM (2004) 535 final of 16.6.2004.
30
“Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe”, July 2004,
46
of policy recommendations on how to stimulate the necessary quantitative and qualitative level of researchers
in Europe.
Finally, the report “Facing the challenge – The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment” from the
High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok31 supports the EU’s strategy on human resources in R&D by stressing
that Europe needs to dramatically improve its attractiveness to researchers by reducing the administrative
obstacles to mobility (social security entitlements, fast track work permit and visa procedures and recognition
of qualifications).
Promoting the profession and career of researchers: The European Charter for Researchers and the
Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers
One of the actions proposed in the Career Communication that was also addressed in the Council
Resolution of 10 November 2003 is the work towards the development of a European Charter for Researchers
and a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. It was decided in early 2004 that the development
of these two instruments should be undertaken through a bottom-up approach by engaging multiple
stakeholders of the research community and governments in a broad-based consultation process. This was
done in particular through the members of the Steering Group Human Resources and Mobility and the
members of the External Advisory Group on Human Resources and Mobility.
Besides, additional consultation took place throughout Europe via targeted seminars, workshops or
ad-hoc meetings in Brussels, which involved organisations such as the Marie Curie Fellowship Association
(MCFA), EURODOC32, Euroscience, the European University Association (EUA), the European Industrial
Research Management Association (EIRMA), as well as representatives from trade unions such as
EUROCADRES and the European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE). Many stakeholders,
amongst whom 19 participating countries33, provided input. Another milestone in this consultation were the
two dedicated workshops on “the Charter and the Code” organised within the context of the Dutch presidency
conference on “Brain Gain – the Instruments” in The Hague on 29 and 30 September 200434.
A spin off effect of the consultation process was that several Member States have launched national
initiatives to further discuss these topics. National task forces with stakeholders from the public and private
sector and trade union representatives were established in Austria, Ireland, Sweden and the UK, or seminars
and dedicated workshops were organised (Belgium, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands). Based on this broad
consultation process, the Commission prepared the final draft for a Recommendation from the Commission to
the Member States on the European Charter and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers35,
which was finally adopted by the Commission on 11 March 2005.
The European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for their Recruitment
These two documents are key elements in the EU’s policy to make research an attractive career,
which is a vital feature of its strategy to stimulate economic and employment growth. The Charter and Code
of Conduct will give individual researchers the same rights and obligations wherever they may work
throughout the EU. This should help counter the fact that research careers in Europe are fragmented at local,
regional, national or sectoral level, and allow Europe to make the most of its scientific potential. The Charter
and the Code of Conduct contribute to this objective by addressing Member States, employers, funding
organisations and researchers at all career stages. They cover all fields of research in the public and private
sectors, irrespective of the nature of the appointment or employment, the legal status of the employer or the
type of organisation or establishment in which the work is carried out.
The European Charter for Researchers addresses the roles, responsibilities and entitlements of
researchers and their employers or funding organisations. It aims at ensuring that the relationship between
these parties contributes to successful performance in the generation, transfer and sharing of knowledge, and
to the career development of researchers. The Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers aims to
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/conferences/2004/sciprof/pdf/hlg_report_en.pdf
31
For full report see: http://europa.eu.int/growthandjobs/pdf/kok_report_en.pdf
32
http://www.eurodoc.net/workgroups/supervision/Eurodocsuptrain.pdf
33
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
34
See conclusion available on: http://www.braingain-instruments.nl
35
C(2005) 576 of 11.3.2005. The text of the Charter and the Code of Conduct can be found at:
http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/europeancharter
47
improve recruitment, to make selection procedures fairer and more transparent and proposes different means
of judging merit: Merit should not just be measured on the number of publications but on a wider range of
evaluation criteria, such as teaching, supervision, teamwork, knowledge transfer, management and public
awareness activities.
Practical implementation will be the responsibility of the employers, funders and the researchers
themselves and of the Member States, which have been closely involved in the preparation of the Charter and
Code of Conduct and have welcomed the initiative. The application of the “Recommendation on the European
Charter for Researchers and on a Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers” is a challenge for
further work. In close co-operation with the Member States it must be ensured that both instruments will
actually become an authoritative reference point for all those who are responsible for developing, enhancing
and maintaining a supportive working environment and culture for research and for the researchers
themselves.
Entry conditions for third country researchers to Europe
Reiterated political mandates36 have been given to the Commission to take any appropriate action to
facilitate the entry of third country researchers to the European Community, which is one of the key actions to
set up and develop a more favourable environment for mobile researchers. In addition the “Kok report”,
among the suggested urgent actions listed under its first priority area “Realising the knowledge society”,
explicitly states that: “More also needs to be done to facilitate the entry of researchers and their dependants
from outside the EU through simplified, fast-track work permit and visa procedures”.
Further to preparatory work based on examples of good practice at national level, the Commission on
16 March 2004 issued a package of instruments on the admission of third country researchers comprising a
proposal for a directive and two recommendations37. The directive provides for a fast-track procedure for the
“admission” (entry for more than three months to the European Community) of third country researchers. The
main concept is to create a specific residence permit for third country researchers, where accredited research
organisations will have to certify the status of the researchers in a “hosting agreement” which will
acknowledge the existence of a valid research project, as well as the possession by the researcher of the
scientific skills, financial means and health insurance. On the basis of this hosting agreement, the migration
authorities of the host country will rapidly issue the residence permit to the researcher. Once a residence
permit is granted the researcher will be free to move within Europe for the purpose of the scientific project.
The first recommendation, which also concerns the “admission” to the EC, invites the Member States
to accelerate on a voluntary basis the implementation of the directive and includes rules on
exemption/acceleration of the procedure to issue work permits for researchers and the easing of the procedure
for the stay permit. It also covers supplementary issues such as family reunification and the operational cooperation between Member States and the Commission. The second recommendation, which focuses on shortterm visas (entry for less than three months to the EC) is based on the consideration of researchers as bona
fide travellers for whom it is suitable to facilitate the issuing of uniform visas, where necessary, for instance to
participate at conferences, seminars, etc. This instrument concerns the rapid issuing of short-term visas
(including multiple visas), the adoption of a harmonised approach on the supporting documents to visa
applications, and the reinforcement of consular co-operation.
With regard to the improved legal framework, prospects are twofold: Firstly, as regards the legislative
procedure for the adoption of the aforementioned instruments, after the opinion by the European Parliament
scheduled for April 2005, both the directive and the first recommendation could be formally adopted. The first
recommendation will then come immediately into force, while the Member States will have up to two years to
transpose the directive into their national law. For the second recommendation on short-term visas the codecision procedure applies, and therefore a longer time schedule for its final adoption is likely.
The Commission will closely follow the negotiations by co-operating with the EU institutions
involved to achieve rapid approval of this instrument. With reference to the actual implementation of the
directive and the first recommendation by the Member States, the Commission will strongly support any
36
Lisbon Conclusions, Council conclusions of 26 November 2002, and the Resolution of 18 May 2000 on the Commission Communication
Towards a European Research Area.
37
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament “on the presentation of a proposal for a directive and two
proposals for recommendations on the admission of third-country nationals to carry out scientific research in the European community”
COM(2004) 178 final of 16.3.2004, applicable to Schengen countries and Ireland (which “opted in”, while the United Kingdom and Denmark
will not participate).
48
appropriate action by the Member States, taking into account the urgent need to create the conditions to
achieve the Lisbon objectives.
The 2005 Researchers in Europe Initiative
The Initiative, initially presented as the European Year of the Researcher, will extend from June to
November 2005. The Commission, together with the participating countries, has decided to launch a large
awareness campaign in order to enhance the public recognition of researchers in Europe. The specific
objectives of the Initiative are:
•
•
•
To improve and promote a better public understanding of the researchers’ profession as well as their
contribution to society, in terms of innovation, job creation, competitiveness and economic growth;
To encourage more young people to embark on careers in R&D and contribute thereby to an increase
in the number of researchers in Europe;
More generally, to contribute to the overall attractiveness of the EU as a reference area for research
talent from all over the world and raise awareness of the potential of the European Research Area as a
European employment market for researchers.
The Initiative is structured around three main pillars:
•
•
•
Events organised at European level, including : A European launch event on 8 June, under the
Luxembourg Presidency of the EU; a pan-European Researchers’ Night on Friday 23 September; and
a large scale closing conference and event bringing together the conclusions and recommendations
put forward during the Initiative;
Activities set up by organisations acting at local, regional, national and international level. These
activities have been proposed in the framework of an open call for proposals (FP6-2004-Mobility-13),
which was published in the European Community Official Journal on 11 September 2004, with a
closing date of 2 December 2004;
Finally, activities organised in the context of large-scale events (science festivals, science weeks etc.),
where organisers agree to devote part or all of their 2005 session to the themes of the Initiative.
Partnerships created under this group of projects may take various forms – exchange of information,
stands, conferences, scientific cafés, granting of the ‘Researchers in Europe Initiative’ label etc.
Specific attention will be devoted in this respect to the establishment of synergies with events
organised under the International Year of Physics.
• The idea of proposing a European-wide initiative focusing on researchers is expected to attract
considerable attention and impact. The ongoing debate in several EU countries about the funding of
research often encompasses the issue of human resources and the impact of researchers on society.
The current interest generated by the human resource debate paves the way consequently for a
potentially considerable outreach, with extended opportunities for further raising public awareness
and policy implications. It should also contribute to increasing the attractiveness of Europe for
researchers and prompt more young people to embark on scientific careers.
49
Promoting Best Practice
Enrico Piazza
PI-Net.
Budapest, Hungary
email labtel2@yahoo.com
Abstract
This work presents the author’s impression gathered at the conference “Early Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe
- Meeting the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice”. As for many other similar events, most of the discussion
was focused on the problems early stage researchers have to face when trying to have a career that brings them
around, crossing borders. This work, on the contrary, tries to focus on the examples of best practice and the
solutions adopted to overcome the problems encountered. The scope of the work is restricted to the East – West
mobility and reports some statistical data on the subject.
Introduction
I wish to give you my impressions and ideas I had while in Lisbon. The title of the conference was
“Early Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe - Meeting the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice”. That is
good news. Instead of listing the problems, which, are pretty well known to those involved in mobility, the
interesting twist was this “Promoting Best Practice”. Luckily, several of the presentations let us know the
solutions adopted to overcome the problems encountered.
Focus on best practice
As for many other similar events, most of the discussion was focused on the problems early stage
researchers have to face, when trying to have a career that brings them around, crossing borders. Both
countries’ borders and disciplines’ borders. I will try to focus on the examples of best practice. Those few
examples that show that some of the problems are actually challenges for institutions, states and organizations
to make life easier for mobile researchers.
Just to make my point, one of the best practice examples presented at the conference and taken into
action immediately after, is the Researchers' Mobility Portal http://europa.eu.int/eracareers/, that is a joint
initiative of the European Commission and the 33 countries participating in the European Union’s Sixth
Framework Programme for Research. Its purpose is to create a more favorable environment for career
development opportunities for researchers in the European Research Area by providing the necessary
structured information as proposed in the Communication “A Mobility Strategy for the European Research
Area”.
Focus on the East – West mobility workshop
When I was in Utrecht, at the beginning of 2003, attending the Eurodoc conference, I heard a couple
of interesting comments about the mobility to and from Eastern European countries. Here, where I live, in the
“west”, little is known about the research done in the former Eastern block, partly due to the former cold war
that prevented the exchange of results between the two blocks, and partly because of the language barrier. A
great deal of the research carried out over there, is not published in English language international journals.
This is pretty true in my field. As long as I could learn, both by personal discussions and as Chairman of PINet, an international organization based in Budapest, Hungary, this appears to be true to most of the people I
happened to talk to.
Moreover, it seems that a period of time spent in any Eastern European country has not the prestige of
having spent the same amount of time in Germany, UK or let alone in the United States. Even if the research
in the Eastern country leads to better results. It just doesn't look as good in your CV. Does it?
50
From Charles Woolfson's presentation, it appears that, even if someone is determined to overcome
the problems mentioned above, a string of bureaucratic problems must be faced: from visa to accommodation,
from language to money transfer. Charles held a Marie Curie Experienced Researcher Fellowship in Lithuania
for nine months during which he conducted field survey work in enterprises and workplaces throughout
Lithuania.
Now, if the analysis holds true, what can be done to enhance the attractiveness of Eastern European
research centres? Is there any example where the analysis is not true which we can bring forward as examples
of best practice?
The conference dedicated one of the workshops to Mobility to and from eastern European countries.
Charles Woolfson acted as chairman and Raul Tan as Repporteur. The presentations were many and all of
interest.
An unexpected outcome of the conference was the increasing awareness of a commonality of
problems faced by young scientists throughout Europe, in spite of social environments as different as those of
the western and central European countries.
On the Eastern European countries
Most of the following is taken from the report [1]. I feel it is important to show here some data taken
from the mentioned report about the Eastern European countries and a few comments taken from the same
report. They show why, although the investments in research and development are increasing, closing the gap
with the 15 EU Member States (prior May 2004), the Eastern European countries are not attractive for western
students.
As shown in the figure below, all Accession countries were lagging behind the European average in
2001 with regard to overall investment level. Their relatively low position was common to all types of
investment covered by the composite indicator. However, in 2000-2001 they were all catching up with the rest
of Europe, albeit at a different pace: A first group consisting of Slovakia, Latvia and Estonia was catching up
very rapidly. These countries recorded growth rates well above the EU-15 average in 2000.
Lithuania, Hungary, Cyprus, the Czech Republic and Poland form a second group with a somewhat
lower – although, with the exception of Poland, still clearly above average – growth rate in 2000-2001.
Finally, Poland recorded well-below average growth in 2000-2001 for R&D expenditure and capital
formation.
In EU-15, most of the 800 000 foreign students come from EU-15 countries as well as Poland and
Bulgaria. Greek students are the largest mobile group, followed by French and Germans. Within the
individual EU-15 Member States, the numbers vary greatly. The largest group of foreign students in the UK
and in Germany comes from Asia, mostly China, while in France, Africa is the source of the largest group of
foreign students. Former colonial relationships have an impact on the numbers as well as more recent general
migration patterns. Typical examples are students from African countries in France, Belgium or Portugal.
For the Accession countries and the other three Candidate countries (CC-13), the patterns are totally
different. In 2000, CC-13 hosted about 62 000 foreign students, a large number
of the students coming from CC-13 as well as other Eastern European countries such as Russia, the Ukraine,
Moldavia and the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
Identifying examples of good practice
When I moved from Italy to Norway for my Leonardo da Vinci scholarship, the hosting organization,
a medium / small enterprise, sent for me at the airport, found a suitable accommodation, gave me an office
with a telephone, a computer, and, most important of all, gave me a reasonable task. The staff I had to deal
with always addressed me in English. They helped me with the working permit, driving me to the right offices
at the police and town hall. When applying for the scholarship, I was able to find information about this
particular organization on their website.
I guess that if a medium enterprise can do all this, any organisation can. Especially organizations used
to deal with mobile researchers all the time. Many other examples were brought forward at the conference.
Moreover, all foreigners who will stay in the country more then six months, no matter why, are
entitled to up to eight hundred hours of Norwegian language teaching given by the city administration.
A different interesting example of good practice is the World Academy of Young Scientists that is a
permanent global network of young scientists whose mission is to provide an arena to interact and exchange
information in order to extend scientific knowledge and improve collaboration between different generations
51
of scientists worldwide, and communication between scientists and Society. Among other projects, WAYS is
setting up a worldwide community of mobility contact persons, who are contemporaries and whom young
mobile scientists can contact directly in a given country (http://www.waysnet.org/m_mobility.php).
Source: DG Research/JRC Key Figures 2003-2004 [1]
Data: Eurostat
Notes: Only 5 sub-indicators were included: R&D expenditure (GERD per capita), PhDs (number of
new S&T PhDs per capita), Researchers (number of researchers per capita), gross fixed capital
formation (GFCF excluding building per capita), and e-government. The other two sub-indicators
(educational spending and life-long-learning) are not available for all countries. LU, MT, SI are not
included.
The next table shows the movement of foreign students by country/region of citizenship in 2001.
EU-15
US(1)
UK
Germany
France
Japan
TOTAL
795 436
582 996
225 722
199 132
147 402
63 637
CC-13 (2)
Spain
Belgium
Austria
Italy
Sweden
Netherlands
Denmark
Portugal
62 303
39 944
38 150
31 682
29 228
26 304
16 589
12 586
14 202
Hungary
Turkey
11 242
16 656
TOP TEN COUNTRIES OR REGIONS OF CITIZENSHIP 2001
EL, FR, DE, IT, ES, PL, IE, UK, AT, BG
India, China, Korea, JP, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, TR, Indonesia, Thailand
Asia, EL, N. America, Africa, DE, FR, IE, US, China, Malaysia
Asia, TR, Africa, PL, China, EL, IT, Russia, AT, FR
Africa Morocco, Asia, Algeria, Niger, DE, N. America, Somalia, S. America, ES
Asia, China, Korea, Europe, Malaysia, N. America, Indonesia, Thailand, US, S.
America
EL, CY, SK, FYR Macedonia, Albania, BG, LT, DE, CZ, UK
S. America, IT, FR, DE, Africa, Morocco, N. America, UK, PT, Colombia
Africa, FR, Morocco, IT, NL, Asia, D.R.Congo, LU, ES, Cameron
IT, DE, Asia, BG, TR, HU, Yugoslavia, SK, Africa, PL
EL, Asia, Albania, Africa, S. America, Croatia, DE, Cameron, CH, San Marino
FI, Asia, DE, N. America, NO, FR, US, PL, DK, UK
Asia, DE, Africa, Morocco, BE, S. America, TR, ES, Surinam, UK
NO, Asia, IS, SE, DE, Bosnia & Herzegovina, UK, Africa, N. America, US
Africa, Angola, Cap Verde, S. America, Brazil, FR, Mozambique, Venezuela, N.
America, ES
RO, SK, Asia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, IL, DE, NO, EL, N. America
Asia, CY, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, EL, Kazakhstan, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, BG,
Albania
52
Romania
Norway
Ireland
Bulgaria
Latvia
Czech Rep.
Poland
Finland
Cyprus
Slovakia
Slovenia
Estonia
Iceland
Malta
11 669
8 857
8 207
8 130
7917
7 750
6 659
6 288
2 472
1 690
864
605
421
340
Moldavia, EL, Asia, Ukraine, Africa, Albania, Yugoslavia, Morocco, BG
Asia, SE, DK, Africa, Bosnia & Herzegovina, DE, N. America, UK, Russia, US
N. America, UK, US, Asia, Malaysia, FR, DE, Africa, ES, Canada
EL, FYR Macedonia, Asia, TR, Ukraine, Moldova, CY, India, Yugoslavia, Africa
Asia, IL, LT, Russia, Sri Lanka, EE, Lebanon, Pakistan, DE, N. America
SK, Asia, EL, UK, Africa, Russia, Ukraine, N. America, S. America, PL
Ukraine, Asia, BY, LT, N. America, Kazakhstan, NO, US, Africa, Russia
Asia, China, Russia, Africa, SE, EE, N. America, DE, US, UK
Asia, China, Bangladesh, EL, RU, Pakistan, India, Africa, BG, Yugoslavia
Asia, CZ, EL, Yugoslavia, Africa, Ukraine, IL, RO, UA Emirates, Kuwait
Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, IT, Yugoslavia, FYR Macedonia, DE, Ukraine, S.
America, Asia, AT
LT, LV, FI, Russia, Asia, N. America, SE, Canada, DE, BE
DK, DE, NO, N. America, SE, FI, Asia, FR, US, IT
Asia, Russia, Africa, Yugoslavia, BG, Albania, China, NO, Libya, Palestine
Source: DG Research Key Figures 2003-2004 [1]
Data: Eurostat, NewCronos database; US: IIE (www.opendoors.iienetwork.org)
Notes: Students at tertiary level (ISCED 5/6). (1) US: Country of origin 2001/2002. No world
regional grouping provided (2) data for CC-13 refer to 2000.
Maternity leave
While I was at the conference in Lisbon, I had more then once an argument about the gender equality,
or, better, the gender inequality. Many women I had the pleasure to talk to were very eager to mention the
glass ceiling they feel they have to meet while rising through the ranks. Unfortunately they were not so eager
to admit that, many times, facing the choice between staying at home with the new-born baby or getting back
to work, most of them would choose to stay at home. Actually, speaking of best practices, most of the
European countries allow the father to stay at home instead of the mother, but besides the cases in which men
would not agree to stay at home, in most cases women would not allow men to stay at home.
This seems to have several reasons. One reason is that, generally, the husband is slightly older than
the wife and being so, he is also more senior, implying that, generally speaking, the husband has a higher
salary. To choose who has to take leave, economical reasons suggest that it is better to give up (even if only
partly) the smaller wage which, as said, is the wife’s one.
A second reason is that husbands themselves are less interested in caring the child and are more than
happy to leave this role to their wives.
But another reason seems to be that women think that they are better mothers then their husbands and
would not leave the child in their custody. Even if modern science has given us all the means for a child to be
cared for by anybody, mothers are, generally, still very uneasy to leave the child to go to work.
Some claim that the child must be breast-fed to be healthy, or that it must be kept lying on the
mothers body while feeding do not have much scientific base and still are pretty much used by women in
order to push themselves at home and their husbands back to work. Until this mentality will change, and only
women can change it, any discussion about equality will be made pointless by those who should care most.
Luckily enough, the best practice to pass legislation that allows the couple to choose for themselves
who should take maternity (or paternity) leave is commonplace in most of the European countries.
Looking at the Eastern Europe, I was surprised to see that women are widely recognised as being an
important resource for research, and their huge potential is less underexploited than it is in the Western
Europe.
53
0.00
Latvia
Lithuania
Portugal
Bulgaria
Estonia
Romania
Greece
Poland
Slovenia
Acc.
Spain
Iceland
Hungary
Ireland
Cyprus
Finland
Norway
Denmark
Italy
France
EU-15 (2)
Czech.
Slovakia
Switzerla
Austria
Germany
Japan
10.00
10.20
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
47.00
46.60
45.50
43.30
42.80
40.90
38.20
36.80
35.50
35.40
34.60
33.00
29.40
29.30
29.10
28.30
28.00
27.90
27.50
27.20
26.80
24.00
21.20
18.80
15.50
60.00
52.70
Source: DG Research Key Figures 2003-2004 [1]
Data: Benchmarking indicator, Eurostat/Member States, She Figures
Notes: Data are in headcount (HC) (1) or latest available year: IS: 2002, DE, FR, IE, IT, PL, CH:
2000, EL, PT: 1999; AT: 1998; (2) EU-15 average only includes data for available countries. (3)
ACC data do not include MT.
This is shown in the share of women in the total of researchers, which in nearly all countries was
below 50% in 2001. As can be seen in the figure below, only Latvia had a share of more than 50%. Estonia,
Lithuania, Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece were all above 40%.
The EU-15 average was below one third, which compares to 36% in the Acceding countries. Germany,
Austria, Switzerland and Slovakia had shares less than 25%. They are nevertheless
above Japan which shows a share of only 10%.
The last figure shows the number of female researchers as % of all researchers (in HC), 2001.
Is this one more example of good practice that we, in the west, can learn from the east?
References
[1] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Research, Key Figures 2003-2004, Towards a European
Research Area - Science, Technology and Innovation, EUR 20735 EN, 2003
ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/ pub/ indicators/ docs/ ind_kf0304.pdf.
54
Attraction and retention of skilled scientists, engineers and technologists: An
Australian perspective
Fiona Wood
Centre for Higher Education Management & Policy
The University of New England
Armidale, NSW, Australia
fwood@une.edu.au
Abstract
The centrality of knowledge to economic growth and international competitiveness is widely recognised. For a
country such as Australia, which has a well developed but comparatively small science base, it is essential to have
access to global networks and the world’s leading researchers and laboratories. It is also essential that it is
competitive in recruiting and retaining the best Science, Engineering & Technology (SET) personnel.
This paper will overview some of the main recruitment and mobility issues confronting Australia where a great deal
of the R&D effort is concentrated in the public sector, particularly within the universities. Attention will also be
directed to discussing strategies intended to overcome obstacles in attracting quality SET personnel, drawing in
particular on the outcomes from a high-level invitational workshop entitled ‘Beyond Brain Drain: Mobility,
Competitiveness & Scientific Excellence’ held at the Queensland Bioscience Precinct in February 2004.
Keywords: Mobility; research training; brain drain; brain gain; recruitment, skilled labour
Introduction
It is well accepted that national economic prosperity is directly linked to the ready supply of highly
skilled labour, particularly in science, engineering and technology (SET). Not surprisingly, how best to grow
the national capacity of knowledge workers and recruit, manage and retain highly trained professionals is a
major challenge everywhere. This paper considers this challenge from an Australian perspective and identifies
some of the main issues and challenges for Australia if it is to effectively compete in the global market place
for high quality SET personnel.
Contextual information on Australia
Although Australia is a large landmass – being the 6th largest country in the world – it is
geographically isolated and has a relatively small but highly urbanised population of around 19 million
people38. We therefore constitute only a small market for the world's major producers and, as a former
President of the Australia’s Vice-Chancellors Committee observed, ‘there is no natural reason for Australia to
be a significant part of dynamic international groupings’.
Our exchange rate is more favourable to those visiting Australia than for those of us travelling
overseas – with 1 AUD = 0.59 Euro or 0.40 British Pounds39. This makes international travel for research
purposes expensive for us, and similarly the purchasing of research equipment from countries with more
robust economies. Our trade is also heavily dependent on primary commodities. Whilst we are heavy users of
the Internet, we produce less information and communications technology per capita than the rest of the
OECD countries except for Greece and Spain.
In terms of our overseas profile Australia is probably better known for its sporting achievements and
celebrities in the film, music and fashion industries than for its Nobel Prize winners (of which there are 6) and
its inventions (e.g. Black box flight recorder; polymer banknotes; pacemakers; ultrasound imaging equipment;
IVF embryo freezing; Racecam TV Sport Coverage; flu vaccine; and baby safety capsule).
38
39
One percent of the continent contains 84% of the population.
Exchange rates as of 3 March 05.
55
Migration policy
Australia’s current migration policy is intended to be responsive to: (1) the need to ensure that there is
a sufficient supply of highly trained SET personnel to meet the requirements of a knowledge based economy
striving for competitiveness in a globalised market place; and (2) financial problems posed by our ageing
population.
Migrants can enter under family/humanitarian programs or skilled programs. However, there is now a
much greater emphasis on skilled and business migration. There is also greater emphasis on temporary skillbased migration than permanent re-location. Skill stream migrants are selected on the basis of a points test
with bonus points for Australian qualifications, skilled spouse, and foreign language skills. The highest points
for occupational category are awarded to professional fields such as computing, engineering, nursing and
some trades. Academics need to be sponsored by their employers. The Business Skills migration stream aims
to attract migrants with a proven track record of success in business.
In 1996 the Australian skilled temporary resident regulations were deregulated. Also from mid-2001,
full-fee paying overseas students do not have to leave Australia before they can apply for permanent
residency. Additional places have been provided with preference to those graduates who have qualifications in
areas of demand – such as accounting, computing, electronic engineering and nursing.
There are clear advantages to the Australian economy of concentrating on temporary skilled residents
– or Visa Class 457. Those who fall in this class tend to have higher than average incomes but do not have
access to social welfare benefits or the national public health cover (unless there are reciprocal health care
arrangements in place). However, temporary residents are required to pay taxes on income earned in
Australia. Of perhaps more significance is that Australia gets these immigrants at their most productive phase
without having invested in the training, and they leave before there is any cost associated with their
retirement.
In 1999/2000 most of the net inflow came from the UK and the US. Other countries include New
Zealand, South Africa, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Ireland and Singapore. Australia has a large Diaspora
relative to population with over 900,000 citizens living in other countries. The main destinations are Britain,
Greece, the US, New Zealand and Hong Kong. Young families feature predominantly among the emigrants,
with managers, administrators and professionals making up more than half.
Australian R&D Effort
In relation to our research effort, we have a well-developed but comparatively small science base,
with a great deal of our R&D effort concentrated in the public sector, particularly the universities (of which
there are 38). Business expenditure of R&D is the largest single component but low compared with other
OECD countries. In 2002-03 the Business Sector accounted for 48% of Gross Domestic Expenditure of R&D
(GERD), while 28% were expended in the Higher Education Sector, 20% in the Government Sector and 3% in
the Private non-profit sector. Applied research remained the predominant activity on which R&D funds were
expended, accounting for 40.6% of GERD. Pure Basic, Strategic Basic and Experimental Development
accounted for 28.4%, 23.4% and 7.6% respectively.
New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria are the main locations for R&D followed by Queensland and
Western Australia. These states have explicit policy and funding commitments to ensuring the realisation of
knowledge based economies.
Australia is well behind countries such as the US, Finland, Germany and France in its commitment to
R&D, ranking 11th out of 16 OECD countries in 2002-03 for its GERD/GDP ratio, recorded as 1.62%.
Australia’s ranking reflects the comparatively low R&D expenditure to GDP ratio of the Business sector.
However, Australia’s Government and Higher Education sectors have a high ratio compared with other OECD
countries.
In 2002-03 Business Enterprise Expenditure on R&D (BERD) was just 0.79% of GDP. Sweden,
Finland, Japan, Korea and the USA all spend more than 2% of GDP on private R&D.
It should be noted that the amount of venture capital available in Australia is low by international
comparison with little venture capital available for early stage development. Similarly, foreign firms do more
R&D in Australia than domestic firms and this tends to be in the high technology sectors. However, the main
R&D effort of multinational companies is not in Australia and the intellectual property is registered offshore.
56
In 2002-03 Higher Education Expenditure on R&D accounted for 0.45% of GDP. This ratio
compares favourably with other countries, being higher than those for Germany, the US, and France. 48% of
human resources devoted to R&D for 2002-03 came from the Higher Education sector40.
During the 1980s there was a noticeable net gain of engineers, scientists, academics and computer
professionals. And over the 1987-88 to 1998-99 period there was a net gain from migration of 55,000 of
which about half were engineers and 29% computer professionals. This net gain is considered by government
departments to dispel the concern over ‘brain drain’ despite what are considered to be occasional skill
shortages in some specialist fields.
Australia has a number of policy documents providing the rationale for the need to invest in science,
technology and innovation. Of particular importance are Backing Australia’s Ability I and II and associated
funding. Of major significance is the effective doubling of funding for the two principal research councils and
the establishment of 125 Federation Fellowships in response to concerns about ‘brain drain’. The ARC
Federation Fellowships are worth $225,000 a year for five years. Host institutions must match by at least
dollar for dollar the Fellow’s salary, but receive 26% of the salary amount as on-costs.
The Fellowships aim to:
• attract and retain leading Australian researchers in key positions;
• attract outstanding overseas researchers whose research is demonstrated to be of national benefit to
Australia;
• support research that will result in economic, environmental and social benefits for Australia;
• expand Australia’s knowledge base and research capability;
• support excellent, internationally competitive research by individuals;
• build and sustain world-class research teams and linkages.
At the lower level are several schemes designed to encourage international and cross-sectoral training.
These include Linkage International run by the Australian Research Council and Linkage-CSIRO which
provides for the salaries of postdocs working in collaborative teams of researchers from universities and
CSIRO. There are also mobility schemes in the medical science areas as well as within rural industries
research fields. The major problem is with the number of awards made rather than the lack of schemes as
such.
Despite such initiatives, there has been ongoing concern by a number of peak bodies and leading
researchers that Australia’s capacity to attract and retain highly skilled workers is being tested.
Brain Drain / Gain / Circulation / Retention / Loss / Waste
The advent of globalisation, knowledge based economies and advances in Information and
Communications technologies have, not surprisingly, led to intense competition between countries for highly
skilled SET personnel. This international mobility of skilled labour has resulted in what the World Bank has
termed ‘new forms of capital flight’ (brain drain) that result in a loss of local capacity in fields critical to
development. Brain drain is often defined in association with its problems for developing countries where the
‘poaching’ or ‘skimming’ of skilled labour by robust developed economies can have profound effects on
attempts to build knowledge systems. These countries are considered to be additionally disadvantaged when
the initial training for these ‘poached’ has been paid by the home country (World Bank 2002).
The sink hole for much of the brain drain is clearly the US which competes ‘aggressively’ for high
calibre SET personnel and in terms of its higher education sector has a postgraduate system which is heavily
dependent on foreign science and engineering students.
However, as a number of commentators have observed brain drain arguments have often been
developed in the absence of meaningful internationally comparative mobility statistics or indicators. This is
particularly so for a country such as Australia where manpower statistics are disaggregated and do not capture
all information needed to understand immigration flows. And there has also been an undue preponderance by
some analysts on the negatives rather than positive aspects of mobility of skilled labour. However, it is clear
that mobile skilled personnel can act as a facilitator in greater collaboration and understanding between
countries (cf. Barré et al. 2003).
40
It is important to note that, unlike the US, for example, Australia has very few private foundations to look to for research support and there is
nothing like the level of endowment funds that some of the major US universities enjoy.
57
Human capital mobility is a complex phenomenon comprising a range of push/pull factors. Growing
attention, however, has been directed to what have been termed ‘circulators’ – i.e. those who acquire and
upgrade their professional skills overseas but then return to their home countries – bringing a range of benefits
directly resulting from the tacit knowledge acquired (cf. Mahroum 2000). Identifying these circulators and
developing strategies for facilitating their recruitment is an important challenge for both public and private
sector organisations, as indeed is the development of sustainable recruitment and retention policies between
countries for highly qualified personnel in general.
In Australia brain gain/drain/circulation/loss has become an issue of intense concern, although there
are few studies which have systematically investigated the issue. Nonetheless, there is some evidence to
support the exodus of quality SET personnel, particularly from the universities. However, a study of the
movement of skilled workers to and from Australia over the 5-year period 1995-96 to 1999-2000 showed that
the net loss of skilled residents was offset for almost every occupation by permanent and temporary migration.
Although, whether or not there was a corresponding quality in the skills sets of those arriving could not be
established. And this is an issue that has preoccupied a number of S&T peak bodies, such as Federation of
Australian Scientific and Technological Societies.
As the author of the international movement of skilled workers report stated, there is very little indepth analysis in the literature of the factors shaping international movement to and from Australia.
Nonetheless it is useful to summarise outcomes of several surveys which have attempted to address mobility
issues from different perspectives.
Victorian Endowment for Science, Knowledge and Innovation Expatriate Survey, July 2002
This organisation surveyed 450 expatriate professionals about their reasons for leaving Australia. The
profile of the expatriates is as follows:
• The bulk of expatriates are aged between 26 and 36.
• Just over 61 per cent are male.
• Almost three-quarters are living in a relationship.
• Close to one-third have children living at home.
• All but two per cent have relatives living in Australia.
The main reason for leaving was for career development and advancement. Of particular importance
is to note that before considering returning to Australia, expatriates wanted information about the following:
• Working conditions and salaries in their specific industry.
• Taxation guides.
• Educational facilities in their State of relocation.
• Real estate in their State of relocation.
• Mentoring opportunities in the corporate and academic research sectors.
• Start-up programs for new businesses.
• Availability of work visas for partners.
The Australian lifestyle was a major reason for people wanting to return.
The Australian Society for Medical Research (ASMR)
The ASMR has undertaken two workforce reviews identifying impediments to scientists continuing
their work in Australia, forcing many to seek positions overseas. In the 1999 survey most Australian
researchers working overseas did want to return to Australia to a research position. However, considerable
concern was expressed about the availability of research funds, poor job security and lack of career structure
and opportunities in the Australian research sector.
The main reasons for leaving Australia included:
•
•
•
•
•
To broaden scientific experience.
Career path.
To learn new research techniques.
Research funding availability.
To collaborate with other scientists.
58
• To travel.
• Employment stability/conditions.
• To increase salary.
The expatriate researchers also expressed concerns about overall R&D capacity in Australia.
Report prepared for the Chifley Research Centre 2001 – Brain Drain or Brain Gain?
This report was based on a survey of 174 researchers in universities and other organisations regarding
labour mobility issues particularly as they relate to any loss to overseas of talented research staff (Boyd 2001).
The survey also investigated impediments to the recruitment of adequately qualified scientific and other
research staff.
For the more established researchers, the survey found that the strongest attraction is the superior
research facilities and funding available overseas, followed by the better salaries and conditions. The survey
also found that younger researchers are also attracted by the superior research facilities and funding followed
by better career growth opportunities.
On the recruitment side of the equation, the survey found that there is great difficulty being
experienced not only in replacing lost research talent, but in recruiting suitably qualified research staff
generally. The biggest impediment to recruitment of talented researchers from overseas is clearly the low
salary structure in Australia compared with other countries – even when the comparatively lower cost of
living in Australia is taken into account. It is apparent that a lack of research funding and uncompetitive
salaries compared with industry also feature as serious impediments to recruitment from within Australia
Skilled Labour: Gains and Losses – Australian Immigration (Birrell et al 2001)
In this survey which actually demonstrated a net gain of skilled labour the authors addressed the
issues of (1) factors that can explain why Australia is not losing a greater proportion of its residents to
locations which offer better salaries and perhaps better career prospects; and (2) why Australia is attracting a
substantial flow of skilled migrants. As with other researchers, the authors claim that lifestyle appears to be a
key determinant.
There is very little in-depth analysis in the literature of the factors shaping international movement to
and from Australia. Most of the discussion has been anecdotal in nature or based on ad hoc research.
However, there does seem to be strong support from the studies that do exist and interviews with recruitment
experts that lifestyle attractions are important.
The human factor
There are many factors that influence the success with which highly trained personnel move between
countries and between sectors of employment. Often overlooked, however, are the personal adjustments that
are necessary to work effectively in a different culture (Wood and Boardman 1999). Differences in social,
legal, language and economic systems can at times be perplexing. A related concern is how those receiving or
advancing their training in other countries can effectively be repatriated into professions within their home
countries.
Two successful initiatives in this regard are the Marie Curie Fellowship Association and the French
based Bernard Gregory Association. These associations offer excellent models for Australia in the strategic
management of its skilled labour. There are information portals for expat Australians and for those seeking to
come to Australia. However, in relation to the former this has often been based on voluntary efforts and in
relation to the latter, the provision of portals as such by government departments does not always mean that
they meet the needs of potential skilled migrants.
59
Signals about Australia and it’s R&D
Positives:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It has a stable, albeit conservative government and its economy has continued to grow despite
downturns in the economies of many of its competitors.
By and large (despite the rhetoric) personal and company taxation are not high.
Migration policy is increasingly responsive to the changing labour market requirements for skilled
professionals.
There is an established albeit ageing highly skilled workforce.
There is world class, leading research in select areas – particularly aspects of medicine and
biotechnology.
Standard of living is comparatively high – with reasonable access to health and education, good
housing, relatively low crime and pollution levels.
A number of the States are committed to realising knowledge-based economies. However, there is a
concentration of effort and funding in the biotechnology, IT type areas – it is not across the board.
There is a strong receptiveness to using Virtual Centres of Excellence for trans-institutional
collaborations.
Despite problems with the level of R&D funding there are still opportunities for involvement in
cutting-edge research, particularly in the CRCs and biomedical-related research institutes.
There is an ethnically diverse mix in the metropolitan centres with associated support networks.
Wonderful climate, spectacular landscapes and friendly locals.
Negatives:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is the possibility that government migration policies are more geared to attracting short-term
circulators rather than also investing in a stable pool of national SET personnel.
There are few political champions for investment in higher education and recognition of the
importance of its knowledge workers in other than a strictly utilitarian sense.
Universities are not happy places to work – with an overwhelming expectation by government that
the higher education sector can be made more efficient and that additional funding will only result as
a trade-off with workplace changes.
Low salaries in Australia, inadequate support for research, reduced access to administrative and
technical staff, and excessive teaching loads. There is often insufficient infrastructure and funding to
support the sort of research effort needed to be truly internationally competitive.
Low success rates for applications to the two principal research funding bodies
‘In an open market of innovation, most of the stars – including our own – still, quite understandably
bypass Australia.’
If the stars are leaving this sends messages about where the best facilities and cutting edge research
are located.
Career potentials, particularly for early career researchers are not great.
Links between public and private sector research agencies are growing but Australia is still well
behind the policy commitment, funding and associated mechanisms that exist in countries such as the
US and Canada.
Heavy dependence on R&D of foreign multinational companies.
Reduced commitment of foreign companies to Australian R&D evidenced in closure of labs and
downsizing of high tech personnel.
Comparatively low level of Australian company investment in R&D.
Many of the positives identified about Australia are also present in other countries but those countries
are also offering subsidies and other incentives to attract both R&D investment and recruit personnel.
Lack of mobility statistics that could provide information needed over time about skilled labour
circulation.
There is a need for a better understanding of appropriate recruitment practices and attitudes regarding
highly skilled SET personnel.
Variability in the quality of transferable skills and knowledge of SET graduates.
Mobility schemes to enhance public/private sector mobility are limited both nationally and for
international development.
60
•
There have simply been too many reviews, inquiries, task-forces with unrealistic time frames
addressing issues of paramount importance to Australia’s innovation performance and future. The
sector is review weary (Wood and Meek 2002).
Conclusion
Australia has the rhetoric about the importance of having access to a pool of highly trained
professionals in SET areas. There are also policy commitments in principle to the requirements of Knowledge
Based Economies. But the initiatives and level of funding intended to foster a quality environment for
training, attracting and retaining highly skilled SET personnel are not in line with the rhetoric. It is also clear
that if Australia is to be competitive for the ‘best and brightest’ in a global market place, it needs a coordinated policy approach to managing science and engineering human resource requirements (cf. UK
Government 2002, Wood 2004). Particular challenges that Australia must meet include: being able to more
effectively manage its Diaspora; ensure brain loss from science is addressed systemically in the education
system; provision of more opportunities for early career researchers; greater security in career pathways for
researchers; better facilitation of re-entry to the workforce for scientists who have left because of family
commitments; more competitive salary packaging; provision of ‘soft skills’ training for researchers especially
regarding intersectoral mobility; and ways to make housing in the metropolitan centres more affordable.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8112.0 Research and Experimental Development, All Sector Summary, Australia
Australian Society for Medical Research, http://www.asmr.org.au
Barré, R; Hernández, V; Meyer J-B; and Vinck D. (2003), Scientific Diasporas. Paris, IRD Editions.
Bernard Gregory Association (ABG), http://www.abg.asso.fr/agb.html
Birrell, B., Dobson, I., Rapson, B.B., Dobson, I.R., Rapson V. and Smith TF (2001), Skilled Labour: Gains and
Losses - Australian Immigration, Research by Centre for Population and Urban Research, Monash University, July
2001, http://www.dima.gov.au/research/publications/skilledlab/index.htm
Boyd, J.S. (2001), Brain Drain or Brain Gain?, Report prepared for the Chifley Research Centre, September 2001.
Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training (2002), Australian Science and Technology at a
Glance, Science and Technology Policy Branch, http://www.dest.gov.au
Commonwealth Department of Immigration
http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/01backgd.htm
and
Multicultural
and
Indigenous
Affairs,
Costello, P. (2002), 2002-03 Budget Paper No.5, Intergenerational Report 2002-03
Federation of Australian Scientific & Technological Societies FASTS (2002), Australian Science: Investing in the
Future, http://www.fasts.org
Hugo, G., Rudd, D. and Harris, K. (2001), Emigration from Australia. Economic Implications, CEDA
Mahroum, S. (2000), Highly skilled globetrotters, R&D Management 30, 23-31.
Marie Curie Fellowship Association, http://www.mariecurie.org
National Tertiary Education Union (2000), Unhealthy Places of Learning. Working in Australian Universities.
Melbourne.
UK Government (2002), SET for success. The supply of people with science, technology, engineering and
mathematics skills. The report of Sir Gareth Roberts’ Review, April 2002, http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/documents/enterprise_and_productivity/research_and_enterprise/ent_res_roberts.cfm
61
Victorian Endowment for Science, Knowledge and Innovation (VESKI), Expatriate Survey July 2000,
http://www.innovation.vic.gov.au/programs/veski_survey_results.asp
Wood, F. (ed.) (2004), ‘Beyond Brain Drain’: Mobility, Competitiveness & Scientific Excellence. Distributed by
the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies, Canberra,
http://www.une.edu.au/sat/chemp/arms/
Wood, F. and Boardman, K.N. (1999), International Networks and the Competitiveness of Australia’s Science and
Technology, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra, http://www.science.org.au/academy/media/intnet.htm
Wood, F. and Meek, V.L. (2002), Over-reviewed and under-funded? The evolving policy context of Australian
higher education research and development, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 24(1), 7-20.
The World Bank (2002), Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/pdf/Constructing%20Knowledge%20Societies.pdf
62
Transparency, quality and legal rights - academic careers in an open society
Christoph Bargholtz
Department of Physics, Stockholm University
and
Swedish Association of University Teachers
Stockholm, Sweden
bargholtz@physto.se
Abstract
In order to establish an attractive and efficient academic career in Europe a major expansion of the number of
postdoctoral positions and tenured research positions for qualified academics, alone, is not sufficient. In addition,
the recruitment policy of European universities must honour principles such as transparency, quality, and legal
rights of the individual. A certain degree of flexibility may well be a prerequisite for the intellectual vitality of the
University as is true academic freedom for the individual researcher. Insecurity has no place in it. The presentation
takes the situation of young academics in Sweden as its point of departure.
Introduction
Attractive career opportunities are an important prerequisite for the development of professionalism.
This is certainly true also in an academic context. For European universities to be able to contribute more
strongly to front line research in the future and to offer first rank higher education it is therefore of prime
importance to offer attractive career opportunities for young academics. This issue has gained in urgency
against the background of the current demographic situation in many European countries
An adequate level of funding is the most essential parameter when it comes to maintaining and
further developing the European University system. In this short essay, however, I am not going to dwell on
that but instead concentrate on what other requirements have to be fulfilled in order to build a university
career system that will be able to attract the vast numbers of young researchers and educators we need in the
relatively near future. I will limit the discussion to the initial stages of that career, in particular to the
recruitment process.
A glimpse of the Swedish situation
In our opinion it is unavoidable that the university sector will, in the long run, be regulated by the
same labour laws as apply to other sectors of the labour market in Europe, and that it will to an increasing
extent compete with other sectors of society offering creative, challenging and well-paid jobs. In Sweden this
development is already well under way.
In Sweden almost all universities and university colleges are state-controlled agencies, however, with
comparatively large autonomy under the University Law and the Higher Education Ordinance. The university
(or university college) decides on matters like fields of research and curricula, but also the number of
professors or lecturers, new openings, appointments etc. (even though the kinds of possible positions and the
procedures for their filling are laid out in the Higher Education Ordinance). Salaries are negotiated locally and
are decided individually. Tenured university teachers and researchers like professors no longer by law have a
job-security that differs from that applicable to the rest of the labour market.
In Sweden most PhD students, at least for the latter part of their studies are employed (as doctorates)
and that employment is considered, effectively, as the first step in an academic career. However, the number
of PhDs considerably exceeds that required just to fill the needs of the university sector. Thus, given that the
opportunities offered by universities are sufficiently attractive, there has to be a selection at some stage of the
career. There is, I think, general agreement that the PhD by itself is insufficient as a basis for the selection of
tenured researchers and so there is a need for an intermediary employment of duration, I think, not exceeding
four years. However, even though a 4 or 5 year position as a post-doctoral fellow was created more than 30
years ago in Sweden, the number of these positions has always been vastly inadequate (today they total
approximately 1000). Instead we see a jungle of short-term appointments of various degrees of inadequacy.
63
An attempt has been made to create a tenure track by including a position as Assistant Senior
Lecturer in the Higher Education Ordinance. This 4-year position is designed for comparatively new PhDs
who can be promoted to tenure if found eligible. This possibility has hardly been used and a tenure track
system in the American sense is probably difficult to create against the background of Swedish labour
legislation, and it is probably not necessary.
Towards an attractive academic career
When discussing the issue of flexibility versus security we should keep in mind that in the long term,
universities serve a useful purpose by constantly exceeding and independently reflecting upon the limits of
knowledge, without regard to passing trends or to the politically correct. These are the characteristics that
have made universities a success in the long and broad perspective. Freedom for the researchers and integrity
for the universities are consequently important conditions for quality. Society is certainly not served by
insecure researchers echoing their Master’s voice; some countries have quite recent and negative experience
of such a situation. Measures should therefore target not only material conditions but also increased
autonomy for the institutions, redistribution of higher learning and above all true academic freedom for the
individual researcher. Autonomy in intellectual labour is a motivating factor: in fact, it is one of the key
elements to the attractiveness of the academic career.
In light of the requirements of intellectual freedom and integrity we may well ask if the University is
served by the so-called flexibility offered by fixed-term contracts. I think the answer is yes but not to the
extent it is practised today. I think there is a place for a fixed-term appointment up to 4 years immediately
following the PhD in order to give young researchers an opportunity to further develop their research and to
qualify for a tenured position. However, what we can see today are fixed-term contracts for senior academics
as a substitute for an academic career.
A study made at Lund University (Osbeck and Warfvinge), showed that in the spring of 2003 among
researchers and teachers holding a PhD, 38% were employed on fixed-term contracts usually for one year or
less. Among women as many as 54% held fixed-term contracts. However, short-term contracts are renewed
such that the total time of employment on some kind of fixed-term contract averaged 7 years and that was
after receiving the PhD. This situation is, of course, quite unacceptable and an example of poor management,
but there is no reason to believe Lund University to be exceptional. Instead it seems that universities in
general are slow in responding to the needs of young faculty.
What is necessary is a Code of Conduct for Recruitment agreed upon by European universities. The
three most important principles underpinning such a Code of Conduct are
•
•
•
transparency,
quality and
legal rights of the individual.
In conclusion we give a few examples of the elements of what we believe to be a proper procedure for
recruitment characterised by quality and transparency and by respect for the rights of the individual. The
frame of reference is the Swedish system, as it should work. Needless to say there are too many examples of
cases where it does not.
Before any decision is made to recruit a new member of the academic staff, the scope of the position
must be defined, the subject area and the qualification requirements. Great care must be devoted to the
subject title of the appointment and the question of whether a special subject description should be formulated.
It is important from the perspective of gender that the subject field is carefully deliberated upon. Unless
special reasons otherwise demand there should be a wide subject description.
The subject field, the required qualifications, the bases of assessment and also how the bases of
assessment are to be weighed against each other should be clearly laid down prior to announcing the vacancy
open and may not be altered during the course of the work. Assessment for the appointment shall be based
on the degree to which a candidate possesses the skills required to qualify for appointment. In this
context formal qualifications are of considerable importance, not least in order to give women and
applicants belonging to ethnic minorities a fair treatment: “meritocracy” is the best support for the
underprivileged. On the other hand there must be room for exceptions: in Sweden for example there are
no formal qualifications required for the position as full professor.
The institution of higher education shall announce the vacancy by advertisement, preferentially
in international media, or other equivalent procedure. The application period shall be at least three weeks.
64
Further information about the procedure should be held available for applicants, and it should be indicated in
the public notice how they can be obtained.
In order to promote and facilitate individual mobility one could establish an Internet portal where all
vacancies are advertised, and where doctoral candidates and postdocs can register and inform about their
qualifications. In some cases, for example within new fields of research and teaching, it might be of value to
examine what prospective applicants there are before the requirements for an appointment are laid down. In
this connection such an Internet portal may prove helpful.
In the assessment procedures the faculty board (or equivalent body) shall procure written
opinions from a minimum of two experts who are particularly familiar with the subject area for the
position. There are strong reasons for choosing these experts from other universities and from other
nations. Each one of the experts shall individually deliver a written opinion to the faculty board. They
shall describe the skills of the applicants who should be considered in the first instance for the position,
state their relative ranking and give reasons for their choice.
The board shall propose the applicant who should be considered in the first instance for
appointment. In its proposal the board shall include an account of its assessment of the skills of every
proposed applicant in relation to the assessment grounds that apply to the position. The account shall
cover skills both in respect of each assessment ground separately and in a joint consideration of all the
grounds for assessment.
A decision concerning an appointment shall be notified to all applicants and contain instruction on
how it can be appealed against.
The justification for the decision shall be indicated by the minutes of the faculty board (or equivalent)
and any preparatory committee of the faculty board. These minutes should be publicly available.
Adhering to a recruitment procedure based on respect for the potential candidate, European
universities could compete successfully for the very best. We know that the practice on the other side of the
Atlantic is in most cases quite different but then we do not believe that Europe will ever be able to compete
with America as to who is most American.
Aknowledgments
The author is deeply indebted to G. Blomqvist for many enlightening discussions on the subject
matter of this essay.
References
Osbeck, P. and Warfinge, K., (2003), Om tidsbegränsade anställningar vid Lunds universitet: En
jämställdhetsfråga, Swedish Association of University Teachers, SULF-Lund (in Swedish)
65
66
European Case Studies
67
Mobility of students from the Western Balkans to new EU members in
Eastern Europe
Biljana Zikic
Anthropology of everyday life/Media studies, PhD Student
Ljubljana Graduate School of Humanities, Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis
Ljubljana, Slovenia
biljanazik@yahoo.com, biljana.zikic@guest.arnes.si
Abstract
This paper is concerned with my own mobility experience from Serbia and Montenegro to Slovenia, which at the
same time illuminates some of the opportunities and obstacles students and young researchers from Balkan
countries (so called ‘third’ countries) face in their efforts to study in some of the new EU countries.
As one can assume the main obstacles that occur are administrative and visa problems. Moreover, foreign students
do not have all the possibilities native students already have: health care services, discount for student board etc.
Recently a new law was passed in Slovenia, which even more discriminates foreign students by very high income
taxes that impose very difficult living conditions for some foreign students.
In addition, the paper will present the problem of ‘brain drain’ which is one of the main problems of the Eastern
European countries, especially ‘third’ countries.
I will describe some of the best practices and mobility programs for students and young researchers from Eastern
Europe. At the same time, my paper is concerned with students and researchers in social studies and humanities. In
my opinion, those research fields are generally underrepresented in European mobility programmes.
Keywords: Mobility; foreign students; humanities; Balkans; Eastern Europe
Introduction
The region of Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe (CEE) has gone through huge changes over
the last decade. According to different paths that CEE countries took on their way to welfare states through
political, economic and socio-cultural transition, there are now many differences and contradictory situations
within the region. If we consider Eastern Europe and academic mobility, we must also take into consideration
the actual huge differentiation and segmentation of the region. Consequently, due to the great differences in
conditions and possibilities for academic scientific study and research within different countries of CEE, there
are large interests in mobility to the other countries of the same region. Besides better conditions for quality
scientific research, there are also other facts which make some countries of CEE even a more desirable
destination for students from the region. It is geographical closeness, historical and socio-cultural connections,
which make it much easier for students and researchers from the region to take the decision to move to these
‘neighbouring’ countries. This ‘East to East’ mobility direction is certainly one of the mobility practices that
deserve profound consideration.
Let me present my own mobility experience from Serbia and Montenegro to Slovenia, which can be
used as first hand information about underlying mobility obstacles as well as best practices for students who
come from the Balkans to study in another country in the region (particularly new EU member states).
Problems and obstacles
The basic problems which students and researchers in the Balkans have to face are:
68
Lack of information about mobility programs for undergraduate and postgraduate students.
After graduation from Belgrade University I was not aware of the opportunities for further studying
and doing research abroad. Today the information is more and more accessible to a broader population of
students in the Balkans, but not everything is transparent and well distributed, and the opportunities are still
not visible enough for all.
When a student/young researcher finally gets adequate information about a mobility programme and
arranges everything with the host institution, another obstacle occurs. That is the one which takes a lot of time,
energy and nerves of the student/researcher, which could be otherwise invested in solving much more useful
problems (as scientific and research ones):
Problems with getting a residence permit.
Administrative problems occurred when I applied for the student residence permit in Slovenia. I
waited for 4 months to get the visa, although I was already a student at a Slovenian faculty having an
international scholarship, and the school year had already started. I could not attend the first semester because
I could not enter Slovenia for several months. The same problems still occur nowadays, for example with
Romania. A colleague of mine got an arrangement with a host institution in Romania to work in an
international research group for several months. He has been waiting for the Romanian residence permit for
two months already, and at the moment he does not know if he will get the residence permit at all. His
research is undoubtedly profoundly affected by the visa obstacles.
Furthermore, getting a Schengen visa for students and researchers from the Balkans, especially from
Serbia, is a very hard and unpredictable process. To get the Schengen visa, a student from the Balkans must
prepare numerous documents. During my study, I was invited to contribute and attend many scientific
conferences in Western Europe, and I was faced with very tiring and time consuming processes for getting the
visa. Sometimes I was discouraged or I could not manage to get the visa so I was not able to attend a seminar
or conference.
Another problem originates from the administrative structure in the host country (in my case
Slovenia), because foreign students are not considered the same as native students:
Administrative problems in the host country.
Pay rates for health care service taxes are much more expensive for those foreign students whose
native countries do not have a special agreement with the host country (in this case with Slovenia). The
majority of students who are affected by this are from the Western Balkan countries (former Yugoslavia).
Foreign students can get student board, but only up to a limited number. Foreign students cannot
benefit from student apartment facilities, which native students can. When I asked why this is so, the answer
from the student organisation was that I have rights as a foreign student to that facility, but there are no
administrative forms which I can fill in (application forms for foreign students do not exist)! The Slovenian
language courses that are organised at the University of Ljubljana are incredibly expensive, not only for
students’ but also for researchers’ budgets.
The new law on income tax, which was brought into force at the beginning of this year (2005), has
brought hard times to the whole student population in Slovenia, particularly to foreign students. Namely, the
new law imposes tax on students’ income, which is higher for foreigner students than for native students.
Moreover, while native students can get their money back if their income does not exceed the regulated
amount for the year, foreign students would not get anything back according to the new tax law. The majority
of students who come from abroad, and particularly those who come from the Balkan countries have to work
and to support themselves while studying in Slovenia even if they have scholarships (there are mostly only
partial stipends available). This means that the new law will make life and study/research very difficult if not
impossible for the majority of students who come from the Balkan countries. Such discriminatory
administrative acts certainly do not stimulate mobility and student exchange, they rather make it very difficult
and undesirable.
There are also other obstacles because of the special requirements of the host institution or mobility
organisation.
Citizenship as an obstacle.
I cannot apply for some scholarships that my host country (Slovenia) offers, as I am not a citizen of
Slovenia. Similarly, as I do not study in my country of origin (Serbia and Montenegro) I often cannot apply
69
for a scholarship of that country. There are also scholarships offered by western countries which require to
study in the home country. For example, the French Embassy PhD Students Mobility Programme offers
scholarships for research in France for several months. I could not apply in Slovenia because the condition is
Slovenian citizenship and I could not apply in Belgrade because my citizenship is not enough. The condition
of the French Embassy in Belgrade is to study in my home country (Serbia). I had the same experience with
the British Council scholarships.
Examples of best practice
I am very glad that I can present not only problems and obstacles but also examples of best practice.
Certainly, Internet and e-mail services are very effective in spreading information on mobility programs.
Best Practice: Some of the Internet pages about opportunities for students from Balkan countries:
• Student Information Serbia and Montenegro: www.infostud.com
• Balkan Academic News: www.seep.ceu.hu/balkans
• Belgrade Open School (BOS): www.bos.org.yu
Best Practice: International Higher Education Support Program (HESP) of the Open Society Institute
(OSI).
This programme promotes the advancement of higher education within the humanities and social
sciences in Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Mongolia:
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/hesp
It is thanks to a mobility scholarship of the OSI I am now in the last year of my PhD studies at the
Ljubljana Graduate School of Humanities, Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis.
Open Society Institute from Budapest.
It offers stimulating scholarships and grants for students from Eastern Europe moving to other
Eastern European countries:
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/scholarship/focus_areas/soros_supplementary
The Global Supplementary Grant Program
This programme offers supplementary grants to students from selected countries of Central and
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The grants enable qualified students to pursue doctoral studies in
the humanities and social sciences at accredited universities in Western Europe, the Middle/Near East, Asia,
Australia, and North America:
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/scholarship/focus_areas/global_supplementary/guidelines
Returning Scholar Fellowship Program for citizens from ex -socialist countries:
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/hesp/focus_areas/afp
Grants from the Open Society Institute for visiting semesters
The Open Society Institute offers grant for students from Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe,
Eurasia and Mongolia who intend to spend a visiting semester in another country:
http://www.soros.org/initiatives/hesp/focus_areas/mobility_program/student_mobility
Best practice: Host faculty at Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis
Providing help with accommodation, administrative and other problems that might occur:
http://www.ish.si/
My host institute, Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis, helped me a lot in the first weeks of my stay in
Slovenia. The faculty made enormous efforts to help me solve administrative and other problems, but also
gave me support and encouraged me, which is of enormous significance when coming to a foreign country.
The Brain drain phenomenon
One of the underlying problems of the scientific and academic milieu in South Eastern Europe is the
‘brain drain’ phenomenon. During the last decade the majority of young researchers and scientists have left
70
South Eastern Europe, looking for better conditions for scientific research (financial and technical support).
This trend is continuing and becoming more and more disturbing and omnipresent in all scientific disciplines.
The effects of this phenomenon are already very present in the form of slow and limited development of the
region.
Recommendation
Specific visa and residence permit facilities for students and scientists would positively affect a great
deal of students and mobile researchers from the Balkans and South Eastern Europe. At the same time, more
funding for the research teams and institutions in South Eastern Europe as well as reintegration grants and
projects for researchers form the CEE region are necessary. An increased mobility of researchers from the EU
to this region would certainly help the scientific development in the region, and in the long-term perspective it
would solve the numerous problems which students and researchers from CEE have to face today.
71
Obstacles to mobility affecting early stage researchers from the
Republic of Moldova
Dragos Postolache
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Association of Young Researchers from Moldova “PRO-Science”
Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
dragospostolache@yahoo.com
Abstract
The author presents the main obstacles to mobility encountered by early stage researchers (ESR) from Moldova.
Most popular national programs that have improved the situation of Moldavian ESRs as well as the recent changes
that affect the situation of the national scientific community are illustrated. Moreover, the aims and achievements of
the Association of Young Researchers from Moldova “PRO-Science” are highlighted
Keywords: Early stage researchers, mobility programs, Association of Young Researchers from Moldova
“PRO-Science”.
The Republic of Moldova is situated in the Black Sea basin. It borders Romania to the West and
Ukraine to the North, East, and Southeast. In the Republic of Moldova 51 institutions offer PhD degrees for
371 specialities. There are different types of institutions with PhD awarding powers as follows: Research
institutions: 34 (66,6%), Universities: 10 (19,6%), Academies: 4 (7,8%) and Research centres: 3 (5,88%). The
approximate total number of PhD candidates in the Republic of Moldova is 1613. Over the past five years the
total number of PhD candidates that have been enrolled in graduate and post-graduate studies has increased. In
the same time the number of PhD candidates that abandon their studies or have been expelled has dramatically
increased during the last ten years. The number of theses that are finalized in term has continuously decreased.
These trends of increasing the number of students that abandon their studies and the decreasing of proportion
of thesis finalized in term are consequences of economical and social impediments that PhD candidates are
confronted with.
Owing to the low salaries, the size of the research institutional staff has shrunk dramatically and the
brain drain among young researchers has increased. One of imperative measures that should be implemented
to attract graduates in scientific careers would be to provide access to aid systems, through financial credits,
social housing facilities, awards, excellence fellowships, research grants.
The government has managed to create some excellence fellowships, as for example:
• Excellence Scholarships for PhD students offered by the Government of the Republic of Moldova
(from 2004)
• National Awards for Youth in the field of Sciences and Technical areas,
• National Scholarships Programme for PhD candidates from Moldova
• (organised by World Federation of Scientists)
• Scholarships for ESRs offered by the National Banc (from 2005)
• “National Fund to support Science” (from 2004).
A major recent change that would affect the situation of all scientific community in the Republic of
Moldova is the implementation of the “Code of Science and Innovations in the Republic of Moldova” that was
approved by the Parliament in 15 July 2004. The Code of Science and Innovations includes all laws that
concern science and innovation. The new code empowers the Academy of Sciences by stipulating a direct
bilateral agreement between the Government and the Academy of Sciences.
The Academy of Sciences represents hence the most important scientific centre in the Republic of
Moldova and is the major national public institution that would coordinate plenipotentiary activities of
sciences and innovations. The most important changes that would improve the situation of ESRs in the near
future are: new budgetary funds for infrastructure, for research equipment, for scientific libraries and for the
establishment of National Fund to support Science.
One valuable initiative of the Academia of Sciences was the creation the National Fund to Support
Science that has the aim to support talented young researchers and doctors of sciences by different fellowships
and awards.
72
The rapid expansion of academic mobility in the last ten years prompted the decision of Moldova to
sign the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications Concerning Higher Education in the Europe Region.
The Convention, the so-called Lisbon Convention, was ratified by the Parliament of the Republic of Moldova
on 23 September 1999 and came into force on 1 November 1999.
At present, higher education in Moldova has achieved an improved level of co-operation with the
world community. International co-operation is being expanded by means of various international
programmes in which the Republic of Moldova is taking part. These include TEMPUS, COPERNICUS, FP6,
INTAS, MRDA, French Alliance, DAAD, and others. They are contributing to the expansion of collaboration
and cooperation and to the development of the exchange of values in the scientific, cultural, and spiritual
domains.
At present, exchanges of students, teaching, and research staff take place both within the framework
of bilateral, intergovernmental, and inter-ministerial agreements (which may be labelled as organized
mobility), as well as at individual level (so-called spontaneous mobility).
The main opportunities for the mobility of young researchers offered in the Republic of Moldova and that are
the most popular are:
INTAS fellowships (Independent International Association formed by the European Community,
European Union's Member States and like minded countries acting to preserve and promote the
valuable scientific potential of the NIS partner countries through East-West Scientific co-operation);
• Fellowships of French Alliance;
• DAAD fellowships (German Academic Exchange Service);
• Marie Curie Actions;
• Moldavian Research and Development Association (MRDA);
• TEMPUS-TACIS projects;Network Scholarship Programs of the Open Society Institute-Budapest;
• Summer university courses organized by Central European University (Budapest);
• Global Supplementary Grant Program (Open Society Institute – SOROS Foundation);
• China post-university scholarships (doctorate); During the academic year 2004, 29 citizens of our
country were enlisted for post-university studies in institutions from Romania, Bulgaria, Russian Federation,
Ukraine, Turkey and Cyprus. At the same time, citizens of these countries joined the post-university studies
from Moldova.
According to the department of the Ministry of Education, Moldova concluded 33 protocols and
international agreements in the field of education. A report of the Ministry of Education shows that the
Tempus projects represent the most important part of the total flow of the academic mobility enjoyed by the
students from the Republic of Moldova. At present, 9 of those 16 state institutions of higher education are
included into the Tempus program.
Participation of young researchers from Moldova at different international mobility programs
continue to be poor owing to: shortage of finances, communication barrier, visas impediments, lack of
research environment and infrastructure, lack of information, transparency and of partners. Communications
barriers can be explained by the fact that Moldova is a francophone country.
Immigration restrictions may hinder early stage researchers from Moldova to contribute to the
European Research Area. Moldova is a non-Schengen country but many embassies are located in Bucharest
(Romania), Kiev (Ukraine) and Moscow (Russia). Young researchers continue to face problems linked to visa,
residence permit and work permit requirements. Difficulties are encountered also by Moldovian researchers in
the EU who wish to travel to non-Schengen countries for use of special research infrastructures or for
scientific conferences.
The access of young researchers from the Republic of Moldova to European mobility programs is
limited when compared to neighbour EU accession countries such as Romania. There is the need to increase
access to European mobility programs for early stage researchers. It would be much wiser to encourage and
help people to become mobile and thus get access to new challenges, opportunities and experiences.
There is a need for more interregional mobility in order to avoid a “brain drain” in less developed
regions by actively promoting mobility both to and from these regions. This strategy should strengthen and
develop a symbiotic collaboration with developed countries, thus encouraging them to build up their own
research capacity. The main obstacle for the backward mobility is the lack of research environment and
infrastructure. If our country could offer decent infrastructure, decent environment, decent institutional and
academic support, there would be researchers who would at least think about the option of returning, because
they would be able to raise funding from different sources.
The mobility should be as widely accessible as possible. This could be a priority in strengthening the
sense of belonging to a European community with all its cultural and economic influence. There is the need to
make more use in the future, both at national and at European level, of mobility as an instrument for the
•
73
transfer of scientific knowledge and of bringing together the scientific communities of Western and Eastern
Europe. A solution to the mobility impediments that ESRs from Moldova encounter could be to institute
scientific visas for young researchers and to issue multiple entry visas for frequent travellers. The participation
of early stage researchers from Moldova in activities of EURODOC association is seen as an opportunity to
raise problems, on obstacles to mobility actions of ESRs, to new political levels such as the european political
forums.
A national major event that occurred last year was the creation of the Association of Young
Researchers from Moldova “PRO-Science”. The association was founded at the initiative of PhD students and
young researchers from the Republic of Moldova and has been registered on 29 July 2004. The main goal of
the association is to create a national sustainable framework that would support and help graduates to organise
their future. The role of the Association of Young Researchers from Moldova “PRO-Science” is also to create
a discussion platform with purpose to share information. This objective is acquired through the association
mailing list – MOLDOVAdoc created in 2003. The Association of Young Researchers from Moldova “PROScience” organises information days, conferences, trainings and other activities. Our association organised
different information days that promote mobility actions for ESRs as for example: Participation of Young
researchers in FP6 (Marie Curie Actions)”, INTAS fellowships, Fellowships offered by Agence universitaire
de la Francophonie, DAAD Fellowships program, and the information day on “Programs of Fellowships for
PhDs candidates and ESRs for period 2005-2006”. We also organised the “Conference of Young Researchers
from the Republic of Moldova” on 11 November 2004. The proceedings of the conference have been
published thus contributing to the flow of information regarding research results of ESRs. We succeeded to
launch in 2004 the association web page. Through our web site we get in contact with partners, our members
and potential future members. The web page offers information on: association activities, mobility research
programs and national grants available for ESRs.
Future activities of the Association of Young Researchers from Moldova “PRO-Science” are the
following: to organise national conferences, to organise information days, to organise summer schools and to
create information centres for ESRs. Other future key objectives would be also to represent graduate students
and young researchers towards all political and administrative institutions. Our association would like to
implement an important project to create information centres in Moldova for ESRs. The objective of the
information centres would be to create a national widespread network that would contribute to dissemination
and intensive exchange of information between ESRs and PhD candidates, to accumulate and easily
disseminate knowledge in a multidimensional manner. Also we intend to attract funds to subscribe to
information centres to most prestigious scientific publications and to offer free access of ESRs from Moldova
to up to date scientific information.
The Association of Young Researchers of Moldova "PRO-Science" will contribute to the creation of a
discussion platform that aims to, in a transparent manner, share and diffuse information regarding ESRs
program opportunities for mobility. The Academia of Sciences of Moldova has supported association
activities in organising national conferences and information days and we hope to continue this fruitful
collaboration. We would like to foster the process the dissemination of information that is addressed to ESRs.
The access to more relevant information that informs on different opportunities would support ESRs from
Moldova to continue their scientific career. This task also would solve the problem of lack access to scientific
information and to online scientific publications. We hope that the association activities would improve the
participation of early stage researchers from Moldova to different mobility actions.
Acknowledgements
The author expresses his gratitude to UNESCO-ROSTE and the Marie Curie Fellowship Association
for providing financial support to participate in the international conference on Early Stage Researcher
Mobility in Lisbon at the Gulbenkian Foundation on 25-27 February 2004.
References
1.
Higher Education in the Republic of Moldova. UNESCO-CEPES, Bucharest 2003
2.
Annual reports of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (1994-2003)
74
3.
Code of Science and Innovations in the Republic of Moldova. 2004
4.
www.asm.md (Academy of Sciences of Moldova)
5.
www.pro-science.asm.md (Association of Young Researchers from Moldova “PRO-Science”)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MOLDOVAdoc (Yahoo mailing list– MOLDOVAdoc)
6.
www.almamater.md (Pro-Bologna NGO)
75
Young researchers in Latvia: problems and perspectives in the context of a
common area of research
Inese Sviestina
Department of the History and Theory of Culture
Latvian Academy of Culture
Riga, Latvia
ines_sv@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
The topical issue of today is the creation of a common European research identity. Young researchers play an
important role in establishing a European Research Area; today’s early stage researchers forge the Europe of
tomorrow – these people will be the intellectual front of Europe. Scientific policy makers and politicians have taken
a positive step in recognising the importance of science and the necessity of the development of the European
research area is now integrated into policy, for example in the ‘Bologna declaration.’ But we should also consider
the situation facing young researchers – doctoral candidates and post-graduates - in specific countries, as we cannot
analyze the mobility of young researchers, the development of science etc. merely in a global context. Scientific
activity and scientific careers are faced with two fundamental problems in Latvia: the lack of the adequate funding
is a dramatically decreasing of the active researchers in Latvia and there are not enough young people interested in
taking up a career in science. Another issue of major interest in the constitution of a European Research Area is
related to the question of the role of the humanities, which is under-estimated.
The topical issue of today is the creation of a common European research identity. Young researchers
play an important role in establishing a European Research Area; today’s early stage researchers forge the
Europe of tomorrow – these people will be the intellectual front of Europe. The topical word of today for
many scholars is memory.41 What memories do we have of Europe? Sadly Europe’s history is primarily one of
conflict and wars but we should never forget the important achievements made in the arts and science. We live
in a small world with everything close at hand yet we have so much to learn about each another. The
importance of integrating young scholars into global and local academic professional communities and
networks is vital, areas where ideas and experiences may be shared amongst scholars. But why is it so vital? It
is not just a question of strengthening Europe, promoting science, integrating science and society and
educating society in the importance of the role of scientific knowledge in everyday life but essentially the
question of how we see ourselves as humans in the future. Where are we going? What role do scientists play
in this context? F. Rajace believes, when he speaks of intellectuals, that “the intellectuals are a group of selfconscious men of wisdom, intelligence, and perception who present an un-anachronistic interpretation of the
world for their society and thus close the gap between the pressure of the “eternal tomorrow” and the demands
of the “eternal yesterday” in the minds of the average citizens of their society. [..] the intellectuals are both the
guardians of traditions and the vanguards of change.”42 No doubt this is a rather poetical analysis of
intellectuals. I believe that it is not only a task for a small group of intellectuals but also one for the scientific
and cultural elite of Europe. Scientific policy makers, politicians etc have taken a positive step in recognizing
the importance of science and the necessity of the development of the European research area is now
integrated into declarations such as ‘Bologna declaration.’ “A Europe of Knowledge is now widely recognised
as an irreplaceable factor for social and human growth and as an indispensable component to consolidate and
enrich the European citizenship, capable of giving its citizens the necessary competences to face the
41
See, for instance, The beginning of History by E. Portella followed by a debate with: R. Argullol, R. G. Girardot, G. Kutukdjian, Z. Laidi, H.
Lopes, E. Lourenco, m. Maffesoli, V. Massuh, F. Riviere, J. Vidal-Beneyto and G. Vattimo. // Thinking at crossroads: in search of new
languages, (2002), Paris: UNESCO Publishing, (103 – 183).
42
Rajaee F., (1994), Intellectuals and culture: Guardians of traditions or vanguards of development // Culture, development, and democracy:
The role of the intellectual. (A tribute to Soedjatmoko). Edited by Selo Soemardjam and Kenneth W. Thompson,Tokyo: United Nations
University Press, (42 – 43).
76
challenges of the new millennium, together with an awareness of shared values and belonging to a common
social and cultural space.”43 . The fact that scientists, science policy makers and doctoral candidates try to find
a common language analysing the main obstacles to mobility, career perspectives of young researchers etc. –
it is seen at such events as the “European conferences: “Early Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe – Meeting
the Challenges and Promoting Best Practice (ESRM2004)” and Euroscience Open forum (2004), and the
Bologna seminar “Doctoral programmes for the European knowledge society” in Salzburg (2005). The later
specifically focused on the problems of doctoral studies and other issues connected to doctoral candidates.
Such meetings are important as they help to better identify the main obstacles in scientific development and
mobility and raise awareness amongst scientific and educational policy makers of the difficulties facing young
scientists (especially in Central, Southern and Eastern Europe) in the development of their career. They also
provide an opportunity for young researchers to meet their senior colleagues. I hope that the World Academy
of Young Scientists (WAYS)44, which define itself as “the permanent global network of young scientists”, will
encourage young researchers to actively participate not only in science but also in decision-making. Of course
we should not forget about created mobility and funding programmes for young researchers such as the 5th, 6th
Framework programmes etc. We should also mention the situation facing young researchers, doctoral
candidates and post-graduates in Latvia as we cannot analyse the mobility of young researchers, the
development of science etc. merely in a global context without focusing attention on the situation in particular
countries. Latvia has joined the European Union, there are recognised Magna Charta Universitatum, Bologna
declaration, Lisbon strategy and other policies that regulate higher education in Europe and also help to
promote science to young people. Latvia continues to develop and any development takes time but following
discussions with scientists about a scientific career in Latvia two serious issues arise: firstly, lack of funding
has created a situation where 25% of higher education academic institution staff are between the ages of 50
and 59 and 24% are over 60.
Academic staff in the institutions of the higher
Ages
up to 30
30 – 39
40 – 49
50 – 59
60 and over
education45
Per-centage
11
18
22
25
24
This situation raises some issues of concern (also mentioned in “The survey of the situation in the
institutions of higher education in Latvia 2003 (numbers, facts, tendencies)”) in that the numbers of academic
staff who hold a scientific degree is decreasing. Furthermore the ratio of academic staff to students is low. At
the same time the numbers of higher education institution has increased in comparison to the early 1990s. In
1990 there were 12 institutions of higher education but in 2002 there were 37 such institutions46 – mainly
private ones which did not exist during the Soviet era. These circumstances have created a situation where
professors have insufficient time for their students, especially for doctoral candidates. The lack of adequate
funding has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of active researchers in Latvia: in 1989 there were
6000 researchers but in 2001 – 1361, a ratio of 1 or 2 researchers to 1000 employees. According to
international analysts, it is difficult to discuss the analytical development of a state if the ratio of active
researchers is less than 1 researcher to 1000 employees.47 This is known as negative mobility, i.e. a “brain
drain” which of course has more than just a negative economic impact. Of course mobility is essential for
43
“Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999” http://www.cepes.ro/information_services/sources/on_line/bologna.htm
44
The World Academy of Young Scientists is developed under the aegis of UNESCO. The Organization was officially announced at the World
Science Forum in Budapest (November 2003). The 1st WAYS General Conference took place in Marrakech (December 2004). The Organization
has members from five continents and from all major scientific disciplines and receives support from some senior scientists, including Nobel
Prize winners (the honorary president is Nobel laureate Professor Leon Lederman). – see: www.waysnet.org
45
Data from “The survey of of the situation in the Latvian institutions of higher education (2003)” –
http://www.izm.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabID=16&lang=1&id=845
46
“Project of the Reform of the Universities in Latvia” - http://www.aip.lv/kocept_doc_univer-reform.htm
47
“The programme of the renewal of the scientific and academic staff”
www.mk.gov.lv/index.php/ lv/A_VSS/vss%20pp12jun/819prog.doc
77
researchers (particularly for young researchers) and we cannot imagine the development of science without
mobility, especially nowadays. Science crosses national boundaries because of its global importance,
international support mechanisms etc. therefore if we think not only of some developed scientific centres or
countries but also about developed Europe in general, then it is necessary to think about scientific policy in a
particular country. I agree with Remi Barré’s idea (French CNAM – Centre National des Arts et Metiers) that
young researchers leave their countries because their countries have nothing to offer them.48 Tempting
programmes to encourage scientists to remain in Latvia do not exist other than sources such as “The
programme of the renewal of scientific and academic staff. (2003)”. At the same time many former scientists
now work in other areas and have other business interests and sadly these people are lost to science.
Another, perhaps more serious problem, is that there are not enough young people interested in taking
up a career in science. A scientific career is unpopular due to the lack of an adequate funding system,
postgraduate courses, returning programmes etc. I believe this to be a problem not only in Latvia but also in
Europe of how to make a scientific career more attractive. There are plans to increase the number of doctoral
students to 3000 in 2007 and 4500 in 2010.49 This seems to be an idealistic prognosis in comparison to the
reality today (especially with regard to the funding system and future prospects).
Doctoral students at institutions of higher education 2003/2004 academic year50
Started
doctoral
All
doctoral
students
studies
Budget
Payment
Budget
Payment
Full time
Part
groups
groups
time
257
161
884
541
921
504
Together 418
1425
1425
Received
PhD
65
65
There are insufficient doctoral students who have achieved a doctoral degree – only 0.3% out of all
doctoral students in Europe. Another problem is that doctoral students who achieve or are about to achieve a
doctoral degree move on from a career in a scientific or academic field to business because of higher salary.
The government is planning to solve this problem, for example, by creating centres of doctoral studies, more
grants for doctoral candidates and postdoctoral programmes. But it is difficult to prognosticate how it will
function in the future. One of the problems is that we think mainly about the economic, political and social
stability or development of the state and we forget about the role of humanities in this process. The role of
humanities is under-estimated – there are insufficient scholarship programmes in this field, not only in Latvia
but also in Europe. It is therefore much more difficult to speak of the mobility of young researchers who study
humanities than those who study life sciences, engineering etc. (take, for instance, the Sixth Framework
programme51 where it is also difficult to find an appropriate programme for doctoral students of humanities).
Of course this situation is connected to European scientific and particularly economic priorities where the
major role takes life sciences and biotechnologies, information technologies, ecology etc. Naturally this is
important when we consider the economic development of Europe and competition with the USA. At the
same time statistics show that only 7% of doctoral students in Latvia study humanities. (There is another not
so positive tendency that more than 50% of doctoral candidates study social sciences.) I believe that
developed humanities are an indicator of the normal development of society. It is a question which was
mentioned at the beginning of this paper: “What is the future of Europe? Is it only an economically developed
society that we call “civilization” or is it a cultural society which respects various kinds of diversity at all
levels?” Unfortunately the result of the input in humanities is seen even later than, for example, in life
sciences. Therefore there is a dominating opinion that it is not necessary to invest resources in humanities. But
if we really think about a rich diversity and harmonization of society it is impossible without the appropriate
development of humanities.
48
Scientists focus on the aspects of mobility rather than brain drain – Cordis News Pan-European 1 July 2004 www.certh.gr/libfiles/MOBILITY-PORTAL/ MON-217-43-CordisNews-01-07-2004.pdf
49
“The national concept of the development of higher education and the institutions of higher education of the Republic of Latvia” http://www.aip.lv/kocept_doc_vadlinijas.htm
50
Data from “The survey of of the situation in the Latvian institutions of higher education 2003. (numbers, facts, tendencies)” –
http://www.izm.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabID=16&lang=1&id=845
51
See: http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/index_en.html
78
Doctoral students in various research areas52
Research area
Doctoral students
Number
Pedagogy
202
Humanities
173
Social sciences
461
Natural sciences
196
Engineering
259
Agriculture
32
Medicine and health care
96
Service industry
6
Together
1425
%
14
12
32
14
18
2
7
1
100
Received PhD
Number
%
12
18
15
23
12
18
6
9
18
28
1
2
1
2
0
0
1425
100
Students in the different study programmes 2003/2004 academic year53
Study programmes
Percentage
Social sciences
53,7
Pedagogy
14,7
Engineering
11,5
Humanities
7,2
Natural sciences and mathematics
5,3
Medicine and health care
3,4
Service
2,5
Agriculture
1,6
Conclusion
It is obvious that international mobility is a vital ingredient of a scientific career and we could not
imagine the creation of a common European research identity without it. At the same time it is important to
make a scientific career more attractive for young people and encourage them to participate in scientific
activities. Thinking about the long – term missions it is essential for the normal and democratic development
of the states and Europe in the whole to focus more attention not only to the present scientific priorities of
Europe (biotechnologies and life sciences, information technologies, etc.) but also to humanities.
References
Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999 http://www.cepes.ro/information_services/sources/on_line/bologna.htm
Project of the Reform of the Universities in Latvia – http://www.aip.lv/kocept_doc_univer-reform.htm
Rajaee F., (1994), Intellectuals and culture: Guardians of traditions or vanguards of development // Culture,
development, and democracy: The role of the intellectual. (A tribute to Soedjatmoko). Edited by Selo Soemardjam
and Kenneth W. Thompson,Tokyo: United Nations University Press, (42 – 43).
Scientists focus on the aspects of mobility rather than brain drain – Cordis News Pan-European 1 July 2004 –
www.certh.gr/libfiles/MOBILITY-PORTAL/ MON-217-43-CordisNews-01-07-2004.pdf
52
Table from “The survey of the situation in the Latvian institutions of higher education 2003. (numbers, facts, tendencies)” –
http://www.izm.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabID=16&lang=1&id=845
53
Data from “The survey of the situation in the Latvian institutions of higher education 2003. (numbers, facts, tendencies)” –
http://www.izm.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabID=16&lang=1&id=845
79
The beginning of History by E. Portella followed by a debate with: R. Argullol, R. G. Girardot, G. Kutukdjian, Z.
Laidi, H. Lopes, E. Lourenco, m. Maffesoli, V. Massuh, F. Riviere, J. Vidal-Beneyto and G. Vattimo. // Thinking at
crossroads: in search of new languages, (2002), Paris: UNESCO Publishing, (103 – 183).
The national concept of the development of higher education and the institutions of higher education of the
Republic of Latvia - http://www.aip.lv/kocept_doc_vadlinijas.htm
The programme of the renewal of the scientific and academic staff – www.mk.gov.lv/index.php/
lv/A_VSS/vss%20pp12jun/819prog.doc
The survey of of the situation in the Latvian institutions of higher education 2003. (numbers, facts, tendencies) –
http://www.izm.gov.lv/default.aspx?tabID=16&lang=1&id=845
80
Human Resources in Focus - Mobility Obstacles and Initiatives
Kaili Kaseorg
Centre of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu
Tartu, Estonia
kaili.kaseorg@ut.ee
Abstract
The study of researcher's mobility is acquiring a greater popularity. On the one hand mobility is promoted by the
EU research policy and, on the other hand, it constitutes a personal choice made by the researcher. That there is a
personal dimension on researcher mobility causes the concept of “mobility” to be quite abstract and subjective.
Mapping the mobility in different EU countries could be useful as a quantitative tool to describe different activities
that are put into practice (mobility between universities, but also between universities and industry). There are,
however, few studies on researcher's mobility in Estonia, especially regarding mobility of PhD students. Possible
reasons for this are the shortage of available statistics and the difficulty of addressing the question on how
important is mobility in different fields. The latter constitutes one of the reasons that prevent us to consider mobility
as a “universal” concept. Hence we must be very suspicious when we see inclusive tables of statistics. The essential
nature of the current study is qualitative - I interviewed 10 PhD medical students in Tartu University, Estonia to
find out what they think about mobility and what are the most common obstacles that they could identify. Also
important is their background – all interviewed students belong to the staff of the Centre of Excellence, which has
its own positions on mobility.
Introduction
Studies on mobility of Estonian PhD students are almost inexistent. One of the reasons is the absence
of basic statistics. For example: In the database of working trips of Tartu University we could find only those
trips that are made by employed people, but PhD students are not always “employed”.. Here starts the
problem – we can’t find any kind of official statistics on those students who have moved somewhere
independently; whose affiliation wasn’t a university. The other reason is that mobility is not seen as one good
model for everyone. Different people from different scientific fields assess mobility differently and what
makes the biggest difference – students don’t have equal budgets for that purpose. These aspects make
studying of mobility multi-nuance activity that presupposes from researcher far more of knowledge than the
role of statistics maker.
With current study I try to take a glance at the PhD students understanding of mobility. Those
students are belonging into the staff of the Centre of Excellence of Molecular and Clinical Medicine. I can be
sure that this Centre is scientific top in Estonia (produced CC-publications but also applied research outcomes
and directions). As a matter of fact Tartu University is the only university in Estonia where Medical
Department exists. Narrowing circumstance is that the Centre is pretty young (in 2001 it was named the
Centre of Excellence) and we do not have convincing background statistics on what are the destination points
of our PhD students now and before 2001 (before that period the statistics was rarefied anyway). Therefore
the motive of current study is strongly supporting the idea that at the moment the Centre is unique case in
Estonia: its main aim is to concentrate the best people with the best training and knowledge who could be the
younger generation of Estonian (European) medical science. Big part plays Centre's interdisciplinary Doctoral
School and participation in different EC and Estonian research programmes (also EC mobility programmes).
This is another reason why I can’t compare our Centre with earlier periods.
The central part of my study is interviews, which are good qualitative indicators of how our students
think about mobility and what kind of restrictions they identify. The last part of my article, are some examples
to illustrate the Centre where all these PhD students are doing their everyday work – is this institution opened,
is it obstacle in itself?
81
10 Interviews with Centre's PhD Students
In the winter of 2004 I made opened interviews with 10 of our doctoral students and tried to got
answer what means the mobility as such for them, by what aspects they value mobility and finally asked them
to remember all the experiences they have with mobility (I hoped that they could tell me many interesting
stories of how they spent a year in Marburg University or how they tend towards industrial career, but our talk
went quite dryly and everyone was very careful with words). Anyway, I chose 5 men and 5 women PhD
students who where on the different studying-year level and who got different ages (24-46). Maybe it is
interesting to point that my intention was to interview a couple of Russian-speaking PhD students also, but at
once they began to ask me why is it for anyway and how could these interviews affect their relations with
supervisor (???). I gave up. By the way, Russian-speaking people are about 26% of Estonian population and
these students maybe have had different opinion, which is useful to take into consideration. But as I
mentioned earlier, the life is much more complicated than my expectations…. To take a complex look on my
work with those 10 students, I figurate a table where are four principal questions and the most frequent
answers. Answers are grouped respectively “Both”, “Women” and “Men”.
As I am attempting to interpret my outcomes, it is interesting to bring out that women where more
tight with defining the concept “mobility”. They didn’t add any attitude, just stated: “Whatever kind of
studying or working abroad”. Anyway it was popular to define the mobility as “some kind of different
experience which definitely takes place abroad…” Actually it was surprise for me like there was another
surprise – there was not such thing like “Estonian intersectorial mobility” (maybe the problem is our industry
which is not looking for PhD students…). Men said that mobility is something strongly connected with
personal development – seems that they didn’t want to say “whatever kind of experience abroad”
Women where more talkative when I asked students what could be the value of the mobility.
Likewise, women where more realistic than men, but opened to all the possibilities that might come. Women
brought out that the main value of the mobility is for example, picking up of new and interesting
methodology, but there are some strong “ifs”, like unknown lab or colleagues and supervisor's opinion. The
last thing is possible when she stays longer abroad and someone has to do her job. Both, the women and men
brought out time factor – they are too busy at the moment and have no time at all to go abroad. It made me
think that have they ever time to think it over? When the time of mobility comes…when they are old? The
men were optimistic anyway. They said several times: “Studying here/abroad does not exclude working
here/abroad”. Of course, typically are women those who have several duties naturally…
Like I mentioned earlier, possible obstacles of mobility are different: time-shortage, unknown lab,
and supervisor’s opinion. For women the most common obstacles are kids, especially small kids. But there
was an interesting tendency: When I asked about possible obstacles, both men and women gave me the first
emotional answer: “There are no obstacles at all!” After a minute they began to think about family and duties
here. Interesting nuance. Men where thinking about possible career-start in Estonia that they could continue
abroad and no matter either in academy or in industry. Returning home university seemed to be bigger
problem for men.
Talking about initiatives, it was interesting that women's opinion about support from university was
positive, including monetary support and supervisor's opinion. But it was only in the case of new experiences
from other universities (not from industry). The men were on the different opinion – university is not very
supportive in the case of longer periods. Also there was returning problem for men, which has surprisingly
one positive side – being abroad and gaining new knowledge could be also motive of returning. The main
restrictions for women to take an initiative were little children and insufficient knowledge about possible
mobility-targets abroad. Men mentioned also that they are waiting for “ideal possibility”.
82
Table 1.
1. What is mobility, what categories you differentiate?
WOMEN
•
Potential working in private
sector
MEN
•
Not directly speciality-work;
•
Personal development;
•
Certainly physical presence
(not virtual etc);
•
Two-way movement (we go
abroad, someone comes to
our place);
•
Fear of new environment
BOTH
•
Studying abroad in speciality
area
•
Studying or working abroad
2. What is a value of mobility? How appreciated are different categories of mobility?
WOMEN
•
Very specific objectives learning
of
new
methodologies or gaining
speciality
•
Weak connections with
hosting lab, hosting lab is not
interested in visit
•
Private sector is attractive
possibility in the future
(period-dependent answer)
•
Private sector possibilities are
restricted in Estonia
•
Value
depends
on
objectiv(es)
•
Value
depends
on
surrounding
people
(especially on supervisor)
MEN
•
Studying here/abroad does
not
exclude
working
here/abroad
•
Being aboard broadens the
world-view
BOTH
•
Self-recruitment in the frames
of speciality
•
Private sector means rather
money than experience
•
There are more possibilities
aboard
•
Too much duties, no time for
mobility (period-dependent
answer)
3. Which obstacles you can elicit?
WOMEN
•
Small kids
•
Negative
attitude
of
supervisor and colleges
•
Change of life and adaptation
•
Personal contacts with
foreign universities are weak,
no trust
•
No obstacles at all
MEN
•
No obstacles at all (very
frequent emotional first
answer)
•
Person has to achieve
something at home first
•
Obstacles with comeback
•
Too convenient life in home
•
Family Life
•
Age
BOTH
•
Time shortage
•
Strong connections with
home institution
•
Social insecurity abroad
4. Which institutional and personal initiatives you can bring out?
WOMEN
•
Institution
motivates
sufficiently
(funds,
motivation by supervisor)
•
Institution doesn’t support
private sector as an employer
•
Personal initiative depends on
kids etc.
•
Personal initiative depends on
knowledge
•
NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE
IN HOME - difficulties with
equipment or problems with
supervisor
MEN
•
Institution is not supporting
openly the studying abroad
•
Institution does restrict
comebacks
•
Personal initiative should be
higher
•
Searching for ideal possibility
•
More reasonable contacts
•
MOTIVATION
TO
RETURN - experiences
abroad are motivating to
return
83
BOTH
•
Funding
problems
(institutional)
•
Personal initiative depends on
duties and workload
What means mobility for her/him, what it means for University?
It was quite obvious that PhD students whom I interviewed wanted to cognise mobility as qualitative
tool within the frames of speciality. In the same time, it’s hard for them to say me where they could gain the
best possible experience (in the case when they have to make own decision), but it’s important them to stay in
the same research field as compared with the home university. In fact, as I look the statistics of mobility of our
students and put it together with the information I got from interviews I made, it’s easy to see that all the
“mobility events” are short (from a week to three months) trips for new methodology studies or conference
participations. Usually all the practical studies are organized thanks to precedent well-functioning contacts.
From the one side, this kind of definite mobility is useful for university – people come back for short time and
have acquired some very useful knowledge to working on and being more useful. In the viewpoint of student
this kind of experience is mostly fixed and qualitative. But even in the case of short time visits (for example
up to one year), it sometimes might be detrimental in the university’s point of view. Bottleneck situation with
our human resources (incl. young scientists with PhD) is hard fact that can’t make university/ Centre opened
to all mobility challenges that one could make. The best practise here is of course bi-directional mobility
programmes that are one part of the EC funded human resources and mobility activities.
Workload, kids, family, social insecurity abroad – all these circumstances could be restrictive to
mobility experience, but some of them are unavoidable, some are personal and some are surely solvable. Of
course, I don’t want to state that these circumstances couldn’t be real obstacles to mobility, but after a shorter
or longer period of time there comes resolution anyway. Very many interviewed students (especially men)
mentioned positional insecurity and this is the case where outcomes aren’t easy to appear. But what kind of
position can university offer to young scientist – for example, the typical situation for student who has gone
self-improvement abroad, has broke up all the connections with home university but sooner or later wants to
repatriate? Undubious and good counsels are hard to find. Relying on Centre’s case, there are very few of
good career examples to bring out because as I’ve already mentioned our existence is too short-term. But we
have couple of examples on reintegrating of our young scientists enabling them academically good and
independent position with money to hire people. Ad hoc funding mechanisms are great help for that purpose.
Talking about positional insecurity, it seems to me that in Estonia the university’s system elicits
excessively academic “grow up” (especially in the case of PhD studies) which gives rise to unconsciousness
on other career possibilities. As a rule, university’s system doesn’t predispose working or even practising
outside the academia during the PhD studies, (without making it mandatory of course), although in the right
proportion and agreement/cooperation level it might be acceptable for both. I have read from one HFSP and
ESF report (1) that for a student entering the traditional scientific pipeline, there has been only one honoured
endpoint: the replication of student’s academic mentor, the research professor heading a laboratory in a welldefined scientific discipline. Those who chose other exit points from the pipeline failed to achieve this
outcome and thus not achieve occupational success. Actual fact I can bring out from my interviews, is that
during the period of PhD studies the problem of alternative careers is not the case at all – mostly the reason for
that is time-shortage, unconsciousness of possibilities or fear to make wrong step during the studies. We have
long way to go.
Also one problem is related with positional insecurity – disagreement and misunderstanding between
supervisor and student. Actually none of my interviewees didn’t mention that problem, only some of them
brought out longer period stays abroad which might be uncomfortable for supervisor to respect. Talking with
students in more comfortable atmosphere, has taken me more close to these problems. For example:
sometimes the supervisors are too authoritarian or far from student’s problems, the other time I’ve heard about
the case how thesis’ goal changed in the second year and disarranged all the precedent work. Sometimes there
could be problem with supervisor’s time – typically supervisor is the person with many duties and this could
be cramping for student making her/him feeling like “one little droplet in the sea”.
Mobility – how much is enough?
To explain Centre’s situation in Estonian science map we represent quite good example when we talk
about infrastructure and core-facilities. But I can bring you an illustration which puts our case in a new light:
Our Centre has mainly converged into the Biomedicum – contemporary pre-clinical building. In winter 2004
an ARTE TV channel made a documentary about the problems of international scientific collaboration
(advantages, difficulties, finances, mobility etc.). Among the other universities and people, there was an
episode with a professor who has come from Université Paris-Sud to our Centre to talk about possible
questing of our student. Visiting one of our totally empty labs he’s wondering himself: “How much space and
nobody uses it!” I think the last demonstrates our situation well enough: We don’t differ from other labs, we
84
have almost the all equipment to make good science, but we don’t have the “hub-hub”, the people’s coming
and going. We have time and we have space for someone, for something. Also I can make a quotation from
the letter of German student: “I found the whole atmosphere at the Biomedicum (or at least in the Department
of Biochemistry and Physiology, where I was) very relaxed and quite laid back. The cool thing is that the labs
are anyway so productive if you look at all the publications./…/ And now, after being half a year at Harvard
Medical School, I can say that this is the complete contrast in terms of working atmosphere. Most people work
here really hard, meaning 10-12 hours a day, and so even if I don’t have to, if everybody around me works so
long, I do it too.”
The worst thing for us is maybe being of “secondary” university. We aren’t the center of “big
science”, because a few universities can be in that group. But how many are there universities in Europe,
which don’t belong into the group of greatest? Being secondary, and relatively unillustrious is in the most
cases critical reason why we have too few incoming PhD students. Maybe it’s good to make a suggestion
here. Increasing the mobility with bi-directional programmes, for example, is good and makes sense but it
must be reasoned – perhaps the better knowledge on what are they doing in Eastern-Europe? In which
discipline(s) is each university excellent? What kind of collaborations they already have? This is the good
basis to go on. At the moment unfortunately we don’t have foreign PhD students at all…
Accompanying problem is always the money. Money reduces the number of students coming to make
their PhD and later carries people with PhD to different non-scientific fields (which usually needs lower
knowledge than they have) or abroad to make better career paths. The problem of money is the reason of
insecurity. I want to make a good example here: Last autumn there was a fiery discussion about PhD student’s
stipends. Government wanted to double up the stipend and give it to all nominal-time students. All could be
nice but the problem started with the clause where was stated that working is not allowed when one gets
stipend. Unfortunately student’s pressure was that hard and halftime working is allowed now. This is one
example of these tiny little things, which certainly not contribute to achieve “normal mobility”.
Conclusions
The basis of studying mobility is not the knowledge that we must increase the student’s “activity of
moving” whatever it takes and wherever it takes. My interviews indicated that the overall knowledge on
mobility of foreign universities is quite poor but it seems to me that this is not only the lack of knowledge
(lack of good practices). The entire mobility “world” is quite new for our students – even if they have the
personal destination-point they have no idea how to get there. Mobility exists, but under the umbrella of
university. Maybe after a few years there are more personal initiatives to talk about.
Positional insecurity and little knowledge about alternative career possibilities are more problematic.
This could be “forgivable” in Estonia where we can’t talk about big knowledge-based industry, which is real
challenge for PhD student. In the background of low overall mobility, it’s hard to imagine good practice
examples to foreign industry. Maybe after a couple of years there are different trends.
University/Centre is both the activator and suppressor of mobility. This can be understood as problem
of human resources. The mobility to acquire new methodologies is more likely useful for institution than
mobility when everybody knows what better for her/him personally. The last brings along the brain drain and
unidirectional mobility, which is certainly not the best for institution.
References
Toward a New Paradigm for Education, Training and Career Paths in the Natural Sciences, Report on a Meeting
held in Strasbourg, France, November 29-30, 2001 on International Training and Support of Young Investigators in
the Natural Sciences.
85
The Mobility of Scientists and ‘Best Practices’ or: “The Wrong Answers to
the Wrong Questions?”
David M. Hoffman
Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä
Jyväskylä, Finland
david.hoffman@ktl.jyu.fi
Abstract
This article focuses on scientific careers and mobility in a national context where this combination is a hot topic, the
Finnish university system. This country prides itself on rising from humble origins to the cutting-edge of the
world’s knowledge-based, high-tech economies.
Despite this apparent progress, this analysis questions the assumption that we can begin with a search for ‘best
practices’ when speaking about scientists and mobility. What often needs consideration is whether or not what’s
already known about mobility and scientists has been juxtaposed onto a clearly defined context. In other words, are
the questions we’re formulating or actions we’re considering about the most relevant types of mobility? If the
thresholds of substance, theory and context have been met, is any effort – whether policy process or scientific
investigation – likely to produce a better way of doing things or new knowledge? If so, we might have something
we can label a best practice. More often than not, policy analysis will point out problems that indicate areas in need
of ‘best practice’, rather than best practice per se.
To illustrate this idea, two different research approaches, a survey report and a qualitative multiple case study are
contrasted.
Keywords: Academic Mobility, Early Stage Research Mobility, Science Policy, Policy Analysis
‘Cut to the Chase’
In the European policy context, there is one important reality confronting policy-makers about
persons engaged in academic or scientific careers. Not much is known about emerging mobility patterns
(Hoffman 2004b) beyond the fact that – due to a rapidly aging population – a locally decreasing number of
highly trained specialists working in higher education or closely related research-intensive occupational
sectors are competing for a rapidly increasing number of positions in networks which comprise the field of
choices for a person wishing to begin or continue their career (Raunio 2003)54. Although the empirical context
of this article is the European Research Area (ERA), the ERA is one among several regions in the field of
choices for those involved in scientific careers. This is because at the state-of-the-art, most disciplinary fields
are by definition global (ibid.). To put this simply, economically competitive regions of the world with
shrinking labor forces need mobile scientists a lot more than these scientists need them.
The problem with this dynamic is well-understood at the highest policy levels. Practices that tap into
the potential connected to mobility are not self-evident in the local lab, department, company, research
institute or lecture hall, much less the neighborhoods or communities in which these highly trained personnel
– and their families – are contemplated to live (Raunio 2003; Hoffman 2004b). In this mismatch between
socio-economic and socio-cultural realities, there are several undetected policy issues; and even more blind
alleys – leading nowhere.
The reasons an increasingly diverse spectrum of mobile scientific professionals enter, stay or leave a
given university, company or region of the world are becoming increasingly clear (Blumenthal, Goodwin et
al. 1996; Hoffman 2004b; Musselin 2004; Raunio 2003). Yet, it is not difficult to locate efforts aimed at
engaging the benefits associated with these professionals which ignore what is already known about the
54
This is complicated by the fact that our working knowledge of higher education systems outside the regions in which the majority of higher
education research has taken place – where the majority of the world’s population reside and the population demographics are very different – is
very limited (Hoffman 2004b).
86
implications of this type of mobility, that is, the extensive literature on this topic within the wider body of
about international comparative higher education (ICHE) or international migration and ethnic relations
(IMER). More importantly, this is exacerbated by the use of organizational and methodological practices
which spell the difference between the world’s top universities, best companies to work for and most creative
regions (Florida and Tinagli 2004; Hoffman 2004b; Marcus 2004) – and everyone else.
The aim of this text is to pose two inter-linked questions: What do we miss by ignoring what’s
already known about mobility, approaching the topic with methods that aren’t really designed to illuminate
new knowledge – or both – while trying to act in the increasingly complex and competitive world of higher
education (HE) and closely related research-intensive occupational sectors?
The purpose of these questions is to guide those interested in mobility between the horns of a
dilemma based in methodological assumptions about what can be known about the mobility of academic and
scientific personnel. While the roots of those assumptions are beyond the scope of this paper, it can be
simplified into two main points. The first concerns the difference between an analytical and statistical
generalization. Regarding people, an analytical generalization refers to theory, while a statistical
generalization refers to a population (Yin 1994). The second point concerns the circumstances in which each
type of generalization is relevant, and how they can compliment or confound each other.
To understand the implications of this difference, I will focus on the Finnish higher education (FHE)
system. While the limitations of choosing a small, (relatively) culturally homogenous system might appear
questionable at first glance, it is precisely because a sustained examination of the single case allows analytical
clarity, which can subsequently be tested against theory, other cases or both (Bourdieu 1988). Regarding
mobility, we first need to describe ‘what’ we are talking about, prior to attempting interpretations,
explanations or acting on any of these. Beginning within a single context necessarily precedes more complex,
comparative work.
In the context of many of the ERA’s smaller HE systems, country cases are interesting in and of
themselves as regions, universities and firms position themselves to compete for the most talented staff and
access to the networks which can guarantee research and development funding, talented students, personnel
and the regional benefits which may follow if a sustained synergy is developed (Florida and Tinagli 2004).
What is analytically interesting about the Finnish case may not statistically generalize to Palo Alto, Oxford or
Tokyo. But if policy makers in Porto, Trieste or Tartu wish to tap in to the scientific networks of their
counterparts – as some already do – efforts at understanding the mobility of scientists in FHE are instructive.
To empirically elaborate the question I pose, I will contrast a recently published report about a survey
aimed at developing information and guidance systems for foreign researchers (Puustinen-Hopper 2005) with
a purposeful selection of interview participants in the multiple case study I am conducting concerning highly
skilled migrant and expatriate academic employees in Finnish universities55.
Between Anecdote and Analysis
The problem confronting today’s HE researchers is that the time required to engage the complexity of
today’s HE problems is much longer than the attention span of policy-makers. This dynamic often results in
research which appears anecdotal to policy-makers, who need ‘best practices’ now, to solve urgent problems
(Teicher personal communication). In order to elaborate the difference between analytical and statistical
generalizations, I’ll begin with an anecdote – about a policy-maker.
I was recently asked how many migrant and expatriate faculty and staff would be interviewed in
order to address my research questions regarding their experiences and perceptions of FHE, which type of
work migrant and expatriate academic staff in FHE tend to do and establishing the relationships and contrasts,
if any, between the these persons and rapidly changing Finnish demographics.
When I answered that 40-45 persons would be enough, it was clear that the person posing the
question felt it would be impossible to generalize about the current population of migrant and expatriate
academic employees in Finland at this time based on so few interviews.
S/he was simultaneously correct and incorrect. As to statistical generalization of the type implied by a
recent Academy of Finland (AOF) survey of foreign researchers and PhD students (Puustinen-Hopper 2005),
it is correct to say that my qualitative multiple case study cannot be used to generalize anything that applies to
the population of persons that fall within the analytical scope of my study.
Analytically, the design is sound, offering a good basis to generalize findings to theoretical
propositions. This is for two reasons. The first is that, according to the researcher who designed the AOF
55
The protocol of this study was presented at the ESRM 2004 conference (see Hoffman 2004c).
87
survey, the number of foreign academic staff in Finland – of any type – is not known and no specific data of
this type exists (Mäkinen personal communication). Hoping for statistical generalization is a ‘blind alley’, it
cannot be done. One recommendation of the steering group which commissioned the AOF survey is to collect
this type of data.
The second reason I believe the individuals interviewed provide insight relevant to analyzing
scientific mobility policy is that current literature already identifies the important conceptual landmarks of HE
and the fact that complimentary research is already being undertaken at both the general level of Finnish
society (Forsander 2004) and the specific context of research-intensive industries (Raunio 2003), leaving HE
as an expensive question-mark.
The type of survey carried out by the AOF is a good starting place for many types of efforts.
However, several of the assumptions and conventions which pose the most serious challenges to attracting and
retaining scientific talent in Finland in general, and FHE in particular, can be observed as early as the design
stage regarding the manner in which the research topic was defined and in the way the methods were selected.
These have a knock-on effect as they’re built in to the analysis – they are invisible.
‘More Statistics!’: Be careful what you ask for – you might get it
At the conference that brought together several of the authors of this publication (ESRM 2004), the
most striking phenomena I observed was the demand, across all working groups, for more statistics on
researcher mobility. Almost no one seemed to reflect on the fact that context-bound nature of the mobility
types and issues that were being addressed (Hoffman 2004b) would actually result in category errors if
statistical analysis were to be used, because the operational definitions necessary for validity would result in
types of mobility which could not be compared to each other.
In the months that have followed the conference, several country-reports have been published which
have begun to address practical information needs. However, an examination of these documents might
provide more questions than informed analysis, unless they’re critically examined within the wider bodies of
knowledge about the contexts and dynamics the systems themselves are embedded.
The Finnish case gives a rare glimpse into what is regarded by many as a ‘new’ topic, although
persons with profound knowledge of FHE would more correctly state the interest is much newer than the
mobility of academics (Lehtonen et al. 1999; Välimaa 2001b).
The AOF study aims to determine the information needs of foreign researchers, how foreign
researchers find present guidance systems and how this knowledge could be used to improve information and
guidance systems. A survey was used to gather data from 859 persons who responded to a questionnaire sent
to 1986 researchers in Finnish universities and companies (Puustinen-Hopper 2005). At the data collection
stage, it was decided to target persons whose worked involved the production of research (Mäkinen personal
communication). A statistical analysis of the data was supplemented by ten qualitative interviews. The
interview participants were chosen based on career stage, discipline, nationality, gender and age (PuustinenHopper 2005).
The main conclusion of the study centers on the general satisfaction of the respondents with
information and guidance available, with the qualification “that many foreign researchers feel that universities
and research institutes lack a centralized and organized information and guidance services for foreign PhD
students and researchers.” (Puustinen-Hopper 2005, pg. 32). The steering group which commissioned the
study does present a brief list of recommendations at the end of the report which are as follows:
•
•
•
•
Improving recruiting practices
Compiling information on research mobility
Enhancing international cooperation
Further strengthening the collaboration of governmental agencies
With reference to literature on ICHE or IMER, the report contains no new information, which is not
surprising, because very little of this type of literature informs the study.
Although there is a lot of information in the report about a population to which we cannot generalize,
the data and the way in which it has been interpreted, supplemented and analyzed are more interesting and
hint at some of the real mobility challenges in FHE.
88
‘Foreign’ Teachers, Researchers and Experts…56
There are three main assumptions present at the design stage which guarantee that emerging
dynamics will elude most persons without extensive field-knowledge, theoretical knowledge (Teichler 2000) –
or both – of the intersections of ICHE and IMER. These assumptions involve who we’re talking about, what
they do and if these two things are meaningfully related.
At the analysis stage the vanishing act of these dynamics is insured by tying unexamined cultural
assumptions to methods which leave those assumptions untouched. The most basic of these assumptions can
be found by contrasting the title of the AOF report which indicates a study on ‘foreign’ PhD students and
researchers with the fact that 18 of the respondents indicate they are already Finnish citizens, 134 respondents
who have lived in the country over eight years and 47.6% of 701 PhD students, post-docs, senior researchers
and professors who indicate they intend to remain permanently in Finland57.
Conceptually, the distinction between a person born in a country and those who are not is much more
than a legal distinction (Sabour 1999; Suurpää 2002). The real policy issue here is that a significant number of
persons employed in FHE and closely related research-intensive occupational sectors, who are routinely
referred to as ‘foreigners’ are either citizens or intending to become citizens or permanent residents of the EU
and Finland (Raunio 2003, Hoffman 2004a).
This set of persons are part of an emerging group which is not detected at the level of abstraction –
folk-psychology (Rosenberg 1995) – at which the notion ‘foreign’ is useful. More importantly, folk
psychology is not the level of abstraction strategic policy makers need in analysis when something of
importance is at stake.
This persistent bifurcation within a system containing a genuine legacy of educational equality
(Kivinen and Kaipainen 2002; Välimaa 2001b) becomes interesting when two further dimensions are
considered; emerging patterns concerning the nature of academic work in FHE and current demographic
trends in society.
Selection and Focus
The remaining assumptions which steer us away from new knowledge in the AOF research manifest
at the design and analysis stages. They relate to ICHE and IMER theory respectively. Methodologically, the
flaws manifest because only those asked have the opportunity to respond. Further, respondents – even if the
correct group is identified – can only answer questions which are asked.
Regarding the central missions of the university, only one of four regular activities of the university,
research, is selected. There is a pragmatic need to focus on research at times. However, the relationship
between higher education and society in the Finnish context suggests that an exclusive focus without attending
to the specific relationships between the central missions of research, instruction, service and their
administrative linkages is questionable (Välimaa 2001a; Loima et. al forthcoming).
This is because of emerging cleavages which have been empirically observed in the form of
‘academic generations’, that is, academic groups whose career trajectories have been determined by different
influences in a gradually evolving hybrid HE system which has rewarded individuals whose work emphasizes
and features very different types of field-specific capital (Bourdieu 1988) in different reform periods (Aittola
2001; Hoffman 2003b; Välimaa 2001a). In other words, because the current nature of today’s academic work
demands work addressing all missions – but not at the same time (Fairweather Personal communication) –
many ‘foreign’ academics whose research activity is important, never received the AOF survey.
What Makes a Forest? Trees – or Spaces-in-Between?
Regarding the analysis stage, emerging mobility and demographic patterns, a more important feature
of the data used to draw the conclusions of the report is apparent, but not detected or elaborated in the AOF
report.
When examining the national origins of the respondents, in terms of IMER, it is impossible not to
notice that the largest groups of respondents are not the same as the largest recently and currently arriving
56
In 2001, the Internationalization Strategy of the Finnish Ministry of Education recommended doubling the amount of foreign teachers
researchers and experts by 2010. In 2005 the numbers of these persons are still unknown.
57
In the multiple case study I’m doing, 20 of 42 interview participants are Finnish citizens, dual nationals or permanent residents.
89
groups of migrants in Finland (Hoffman 2004a). The data is presented and interpreted in terms of gender, age
and national origin with references to the cultural background of the respondents. In the EU in general and
Finland in particular, it is normative to explicitly reference only gender and age. However, if one were
actually interested in statistical generalizations about academic mobility in this context, it is much more
interesting to focus on other ascriptive characteristics58 like national origin, ethnicity and skin color – that are
normally not measured (Hoffman 2004a). Regarding the changing demographics of the Finnish population
and strategic HE and science policy, the people missing from this data, and the fact that their absence is not
normally noticed (ibid.), are as important as those who are present. The idea that gender balance indicates
something important can be inferred in the design and analysis. This is interesting but normative.
It is first and foremost a policy issue. It is not a methodological consideration until or unless it is
decided it is good policy. The assumption it’s good policy to account for some ascriptive characteristics and
ignore others is policy in the sense that no policy, is policy. As policy choices, they are neither good, nor bad.
They are unquestioned, undetected assumptions.
What has not been noticed in the process which resulted in the AOF report is that the intersection of
analytical categories from ICHE and IMER59 open up new analytical territory in which more is usually missed
than noticed in FHE (Hoffman 2003b; 2004a).
If data on ascriptive characteristics were available, it would be useful for policy analysis regarding a
very different set of questions about the relationship between higher education and society. While this
assertion may seem abstract, it goes to the heart of a theme raised wherever mobile scientists gather –
academic inbreeding.
Academic inbreeding – or local circulation – which is a more charitable, contextually and
conceptually accurate term coined by Vabø, refers to her observation that Scandinavian academics spend their
career in close geographical proximity to the university in which they received their initial scientific training
(Bleiklie, Høstaker, Vabø et. al 2000). In the Finnish case, 70% of Finnish academics work at the university
they received their most recent degree (Välimaa 2001a). At ESRM 2004, local circulation seemed to be
regarded as some kind of confounding mystery by many dealing with the mobility at a practical level. It will
remain a mystery as long as policy makers and policy researchers ask the wrong people the wrong questions.
The statistical (methodological) trap that awaits those seeking new knowledge on scientific staff in
universities and research institutes ought to be apparent by now.
By seeking information on unknown amounts of ‘foreigners’ – who are not really foreigners – with
an instrument that has not been designed using the relevant conceptual information needed to engage the
phenomena, one heads into a blind ally of construct and external validity problems, which in turn guarantees
the eventual internal validity which might produce actual explanations about mobility, can never be attained.
Interesting, practical statistical generalizations about people depend on solid analytical generalizations that
reference theory.
There is useful information in the AOF report. The effort cannot be fairly criticized for missing new
knowledge. The aims and methods make it clear that is not what was sought. The strongest point of the study
is that it delivers the first set of data focused on academic staff mobility in this context. The weakest point is
that the lack of conceptual work that went into the design and analysis. The most serious disadvantage to
policy-makers is that the darker sides of mobility are avoided, as well the actual complexity of the reasons
why scientists come, stay or leave (Hoffman 2003b, 2004b; Raunio 2003; Teichler 1996).
Statistical analysis and explanatory studies regarding scientific mobility are needed. However, the
essential variables – if one were seeking variables to construct a hypothesis – already exist in well-established
literature, as do methodological logics that quickly confirm exiting similarities with other HE systems, while
shedding light on interesting features that may be unique to our own socio-cultural context. These features
constitute genuine strategic advantages and disadvantages.
Back to that Anecdote: Theory-Driven Purposeful Selection, Analytical Generalization and Observation
One of the basic types of data of a case study is observation (Yin 94). When dealing with academic
mobility in the policy context of a HE system, there’s little need for new conceptual-level work regarding an
58
Ascriptive characteristics are characteristics of a person or group that cannot be changed by individual effort, e.g. gender, age, kinship, skin
color, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability and ethnicity (Beck 1992; Marshall 1994)
59
The criteria for follow-up interviews contains two well-developed notions from ICHE, career-stage and discipline and three from IMER,
gender, age and national origin.
90
analytical starting place. In the design-phase of the multiple case studies I’m currently doing, I used the
following theoretically-derived coordinates to locate interview participants:
•
•
•
•
University Mission (Välimaa 2001a)
Ascriptive Characteristics (Beck 1992; Forsander 2004; Holzmann and Münz 2004)
Organizational Trajectory and Career Stage (Aittola 2001; Bourdieu 1988; Hoffman 2003a/b)
Disciplinary Cultures (Becher & Trowler 2001)
ICHE and IMER theory, a pilot study (Hoffman 2003a/b), discussion with active academics and using
a methodological framework that forces reflection on the difference between inherited notions and relevant
concepts will supply any observer using the same approach four important pieces of information about
academic mobility in FHE: Who we have, who we don’t; where they are and where they’re not. All are
interesting because they point to some real policy issues regarding the nature of academic mobility in FHE.
Tribe Meets Tribe: Mobile Academic in (Un)Familiar Territory
In 2001, after piloting a research design intended to explore the nature of academic mobility
regarding migrant and expatriate academic staff in FHE (Hoffman 2003a/b), I confirmed that the research
problem was interesting in several ways (ibid.). However the most serious shortcoming of the study was my
lack of knowledge about the nature of academic work in general and how this knowledge was applicable to
FHE. The most meaningful theoretical framework I’ve found to date was pointed out by several active HE
researchers who commented on my initial studies60: Academic Tribes and Territories (Becher and Trowler
2001). The tribal metaphor was immediately appealing given the fact that the pilot had already illuminated the
in-group/out-group dynamic which several participants had articulated (Hoffman 2003a/b). This, combined
with the fact that until a few centuries ago the geographic territory of Finland was mainly inhabited by persons
whose original affiliation is most accurately described as tribal, living a subsistence, agrarian lifestyle, made
the tribal metaphor interesting. Within a few short centuries, the territory which would emerge as Finland was
contested by two empires (Swedish and Russian), yet emerged a nation state based on a hi-tech economy
(Lehtonen et. al 1999).
Yet, the geographic, linguistic and cultural distance that could fairly be listed as the basic source of
many present strengths and opportunities to be found in Finland are paradoxically the source of the system’s
weaknesses and several unarticulated threats within many of societies key institutions, including HE
(Hoffman 2003a/b; Hoffman 2004a).
When applying Becher & Trowler’s theoretical framework to FHE, the most relevant disciplinary
dimensions to anyone interested in academic mobility are the cognitive distinctions between the hard and soft
disciplines on the one hand, and the pure and applied specializations on the other. When these oppositions are
put in the form of intersecting continuums, disciplinary clusters form in which the ‘hard-pure’ sciences, like
physics can be distinguished from ‘soft-pure’ humanities, like anthropology. The same can be seen when
examining the ‘hard-applied’ technologies like mechanical engineering and the ‘soft-applied’ social sciences
like law. (Becher & Trowler 2001). A further set of distinctions can be made with reference to the social
component, which characterizes the relationship within and between the disciplinary and specialist networks.
However the relationships between the cognitive and social components are beyond the scope of this text.
Disciplinary Cultures: Build a Mobile Phone, And ‘Foreigners’ Will Come…
Based on the 42 interview participants I was able to locate in a multiple case study of five Finnish
universities (Hoffman 2004c), the short answer regarding which kind of mobile scientists are easiest to locate
can be put most simply in terms of the coordinates I described above.
Many university documents and speeches in FHE emphasize the hi-tech reputation of Finland. By
using migrant and expatriate researchers as an empirical proxy, it might be tempting to generalize that the
system – as a whole – is assuming an increasingly international character. However, the juxtaposition of
theoretical categories illuminates the fact that this would be an incorrect conclusion.
60
I’m indebted to Jussi Välimaa, Gary Rhoades, Agnete Vabø and Jim Fairweather for their assistance in this regard.
91
In the AOF report, the 76% of researchers in hard-applied and hard-pure disciplines stand in stark
contrast to 18% in soft-pure and soft-applied areas. While the author speculates that the high-tech reputation
of FHE is a possible reason for this (Puustinen-Hopper 2005), a much better rationale is supplied by Ylijoki,
who suggests that the increasing prevalence of practices associated with academic capitalism (Slaughter and
Leslie 1997) is changing the nature of academic units depending on their proximity to the market (Ylijoki
2003). A hunch like this might explain why the absence of any discipline or specialty deriving from education
is missing, unquestioned and unnoticed from in the AOF data and analysis. To extend Ylijoki’s argument, the
further I got from the hard-applied sciences, the more difficult it became to locate interview participants. The
soft-pure areas were particularly challenging, although not impossible. The participants I was able to locate in
areas in which migrant and expatriate faculty and staff are rare provided very interesting insights, but these are
outside the scope of this article (cf. Hoffman 2003a/b).
The most significant observation I can provide based on this aspect of the purposeful selection, prior
to the completetion of my ongoing analysis, is that the disciplines and specialties in which the features and
relationships that define and characterize Finland in the early 21st century, e.g. sociology, are generally
homogenous in FHE. This holds true to a lesser extent to specialities in disciplines and fields which would
apply that type of knowledge, e.g. IMER and education. There are interesting ‘middle ground’ areas (Becher
and Trowler 2001) in soft-applied fields like business, languages or the arts, where, as the direct (business) or
indirect (languages) economic impact becomes obvious, it is much easier to locate migrant faculty and staff.
And there are fully integrated areas, like information and communication technology, where there was no
problem finding academic staff – of certain types – to participate in interviews. Which types are elaborated
below.
The most important implication of this observation, which is not immediately obvious, is the fact that
meaningful critique of social or cultural assumptions of the type which are missed in the AOF report originate
in the soft-pure areas, if at all.
It cannot be inferred that without migrant or expatriate faculty or staff in these areas, the simultaneous
reproduction and transformation which can and does occur in HE and society (Brennan 2002) will be missed.
It can be asserted that the task is in the hands of a relatively homogenous faculty and staff who will
articulate the changes society is undergoing and facing – or not. Without an understanding of how these
dynamics work within HE, the question as to whether or not we are capable of theoretically engaging them in
society becomes fair game.
Table 1 Interview participants by disciplinary field of study61
•
•
•
Hard applied
o Physics(2)
o Engineering (2)
o Math(1)
o ICT (3)
o Environmental Technology (1)
o Biotechnology (1)
o Pharmacology (1)
Hard-Pure
o Mathematics (1)
Soft-Applied
o Business and Economics <4 + 1>62
o Languages <4>
o Performing Arts <>6<>
o Law <1>
o Education >1< + <1>
o Communication <2> + <>1<>
o Geography <1>
o Social Sciences <1 + 1>
o Psychology <1> N/A
61
Of the five administrators I interviewed, three held their post based on disciplinary expertise and could be integtrated into the above table. The
remaining two, held their post because of expertise outside this framework.
62
Arrows ’<>’ indicate whether a participant’s subject matter or research focuses <outward> or outside of Finland, >inward< to the domestic
context, or <>both<>.
92
•
Soft-Pure
o Sociology >1< + <1>
o History <1>
Looking at mission provides an equally clear picture at the design stage. Migrant and expatriate staff
in FHE are easy to find in research, teaching, service and administrative areas, in that order.
The most difficult persons to find, with respect to mission, are those who actively participate in the
daily work of managing and running a basic unit involved in undergraduate education, e.g. teaching courses,
revising curriculum, determining staffing needs hiring and appointing people to positions. The difference here
seems to relate to field-specific capital, specifically academic and scientific power (Bourdieu 1988). Scientific
power relates to contributing to the development of one’s discipline, academic power relates to participation
in faculty reproduction, i.e. who will be the next generation of academics in a given field (Bourdieu 1988,
Hoffman 2003b). Only 11 of the 42 interview participants had some degree of academic power. These persons
were permanently employed in units which were very circumscribed in disciplinary terms (see Table 1). None
of the temporary junior research staff was being prepared to take on this role.
Table 2 Interview Particpants by Position63 (at time of interview)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 Professors
2 Senior researchers
3 Researchers/Graduate students
4 Senior lecturers
4 Lecturers
13 Funded project reseachers/postgrad students (foundation funding)
5 Administrators/ non-faculty specialists
3 unfunded postgraduate students
3 eligible MA students
Related to this was the observation that mobile staff are difficult to locate in international offices or
policy groups – of any type – but especially groups working on strategic internationalization policy. As for
upper or strategic-level management, one must look very carefully to find a migrant or expatriate participant
who can give you this unique perspective on HE.
Regarding ascriptive characteristics, the most important analytical distinctions between types of
mobility in this field are local circulation (defined above) versus lateral and vertical mobility (Hoffman
2004a). Lateral mobility refers to qualified academics entering FHE from outside the country, while vertical
mobility refers to individuals in Finnish society of migrant origin, who become eligible within the domestic
context, e.g. a first or second generation migrant who obtains the basic qualifications to apply for a job in FHE
inside Finland.
It is extremely difficult to locate vertical entrants in almost all fields of FHE, because the restrictive
immigration policy of the past several decades have resulted in one of the lowest percentages of non-nationals
in the EU. According to Statistics Finland, the figure as of 12 May 2004, was 107,003 out of a total population
of 5,219,732. Of the 42 interview participants, I was only able to locate two vertical migrants.
Because of the imprecise manner in which non-Finnish persons in Finland are regarded by the ethnic
Finns, questions relating to the relationships and distinctions between local circulation, lateral and vertical
mobility remain below the radar screen of current policy discussions.
When considering knowledge from the fields of ICHE and IMER, Finland, like most countries in the
ERA has an active debate regarding migration. This debate often assumes an insular quality, in which what is
theoretically known about international migration and ethnic relations takes a back seat – if it is discussed at
all – to policy discussion involving stakeholders in a given domain at one end of the spectrum – to discussion
in the mass media at the other (Wahlbeck 2002). The way in which HE policy processes react to change is a
consensus-driven process, in which the main stakeholders carefully develop, test and gradually implement
reforms (Välimaa, Hoffman and Huusko 2004).
Regarding mobile academics, a stakeholder analysis is the most effective way in which mobile
academics vanish from the map of FHE. Most HE systems are assumed to be egalitarian meritocracies
63
At the time of interview, 14 of the participants held permanent positions, 22 temporary and six were unfunded PhD students or MA students
eligible for immediate hire.
93
(Phillips and Pugh 1987; Gundara 1997) and FHE is no different. It is assumed everyone has an opportunity to
speak up on issues of importance, if not personally, to members of various types of representative groups. In
many cases, these groups – by law – contain an equal proportion of men and women. By practice, students are
normally represented.
As the migrants and expatriates I interviewed – with one exception – are not participants in the types
of participatory bodies which make up an otherwise exceptional feature of FHE, the assumption about
participation in this aspect of the system is actually another open question.
Conclusions
The ‘best practice’ I would offer anyone interested in academic or scientific mobility in the early 21st
century is as much methodological as substantive. This is because anyone can ‘do the math’ and figure out if
their national workforce will be adequate – whatever ‘adequate’ means in a given socio-cultural context – 10,
20 or 50 years from now. What persists though, in this particular area, is the lack of methodological
imagination needed when emerging phenomena are in play.
The purpose of this text has been to underline a few specific issues in a small HE system. In this
system the needs of policy-makers in a multi-level scientific policy context embedded in a rapidly changing
competitive environment are clearly outpacing the conceptual language we have for studying the situation.
There is nothing wrong about a desire for more knowledge derived from statistical analysis of the
complex intersections specific to scientific careers and mobility. The main potential of the analysis I will
produce from my qualitative multiple case study involves utilizing the results to design explanatory research
useful in the strategic policy-making process.
However, to do that involves – by definition – working with new knowledge. In the case of scientists
and mobility, this type of policy analysis cannot avoid critiquing the relationship between higher education,
the context of application and society, the context of implication (Delanty 2001; Nowotny, Scott et al. 2001).
Unless the most relevant issues are identified in the design phase of the research, new knowledge cannot
reasonably be expected. This should not be interpreted as meaning pragmatic information-gathering should
not be done regarding mobile scientists. It does mean that the latter should not be confused with the former.
There are useful mobility lessons in FHE. The main one is that by following qualitative design and
methodology principles, I’ve found the mobility that is not occurring is much more interesting than the
mobility that is.
More importantly, turning that qualitative hunch into a hypothesis which I can generalize to the 30 to
40 thousand people who work in FHE (Välimaa 2001a) is impossible because the statistical relationships key
to the barriers which on the surface get tagged ‘academic inbreeding’ by mobile scientists actually involve
conceptually targeting the analytical territory for research designs which would produce answers to questions
no one is asking.
For example, relationships between national origin, ethnicity or skin color and the key academic
disciplines, mission-areas and processes I’ve focused on in this article already exist, but not in the form that
statistical analysis can be easily done. Whether these relationships should be made plain is a policy question,
not a scientific one, because these questions challenge cultural beliefs, norms and values beyond the scope of
this article.
While a mobile scientist can estimate the ease with which they can access, work or make a career in a
specific location, the reasons why that is true go far beyond the folk-psychology (Rosenberg 1995) that people
in the local environment use to explain culture or scientists explain the workings of a university (Teichler
1996). That said, individual exceptions – mobile academics who can articulate these issues – are increasing as
different types of mobility are emerging (Hoffman 2004b).
These findings have implications for any small national HE system which finds itself facing the triple
reality of a globally-defined hyper-competitive environment, a shrinking population of local scientists and an
undefined societal shift in which migration dynamics pose undetected challenges. While caution needs to be
used in not over-estimating the implications of the fact that local and national boundaries mean next-tonothing to many individual mobile scientists and academics, the real challenge for both policy makers and
mobile scientific personnel is coming to grips with students, colleagues, funding and access to scientific
networks in which local and national boundaries are everything.
One of the few answers in this type of situation is to question fundamental assumptions when
approaching the problem, which is often counterintuitive when complexity is confronted (Senge 1990). This
type questioning is at the heart of many qualitative strategies useful and relevant to the policy-making process
(Rist 1998; Creswell 2002; Tashakkori and Teddlie 2003). Careful analytical work done prior to explanatory
94
studies will result in analysis more suited for the real-world pragmatic environment in which today’s
scientists, administrators and policy-makers find themselves.
References
Aittola, H. (2001). Academic Life and the Pressure of Massification. In Välimaa, J. (Ed.) Finnish Higher Education
in Transition: Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research: 111138.
Becher, T. and P. Trowler (2001). Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the culture of
disciplines. Philadelphia, Open University Press.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Torwards a New Modernity. London, Sage.
Bleiklie, I., Høstaker, R. and Vabø A. (2000). Policy and practice in higher education: reforming Norwegian
universities. London ; Phildadelphia, J. Kingsley Publishers.
Blumenthal, P., Goodwin, C. et al., (Eds.) (1996). Academic mobility in a changing world: regional and global
trends. London, J. Kingsley Publishers.
Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academicus. Cambridge, Polity 1988.
Brennan, J. (2002). Transformation or Reproduction? In Enders, J. and Fulton, O. (Eds.) Higher Education in a
Globalising World. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 73-86.
Committee on the International Strategy of Higher Education (2001). KORKEAKOULUTUKSEN
KANSAINVÄLISEN TOIMINNAN STRATEGIA (Higher Education Internationalisation Action Plan). Helsinki,
Finnish Ministry of Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks,
Sage Publications.
Delanty, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge : the university in the knowledge society. Buckingham England ;
Phildelphia, PA, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Enders, J. (Ed.) (2001). Academic staff in Europe: changing contexts and conditions. Westport, Greenwood Press.
Florida, R. and Tinagli, I. (2004). Europe in the Creative Age. Philadelphia, Carnagie Mellon Software Industry
Center.
Forsander, A. (2004). “Social Capital in the Context of Immigration and Diversity: Economic Participation in the
Nordic Welfare States.” JIMI/RIMI 5(2): 207-227.
Gundara, J. (1997). Intercultural Issues and Doctoral Students. In Graves, N. and Varma, V. (Eds.) Working for a
Doctorate: A Guide for the Humanities and Social Sciences. London, Routledge: 131-151.
Hoffman, D. (2003a). Academic Mobility, Immigrant Academic Employees and Shifts Between and Within
'International' Higher Education Systems. Conference Paper: Puheviestinnän päivät 18 October 2003. Jyväskylä,
Finland.
Hoffman, D. (2003b). Internationalization, Immigrant Academic Employees and Finnish Higher Education: An
Emerging Aspect of Academic Mobility. Conference Paper: 16th CHER Annual Conference. Porto, Portugal.
Hoffman, D. (2004a). 300 Meters. Koettu Kampus. R. Koikkalainen. (Ed.) Saarijärvi, Gummerus: 53-80.
Hoffman, D. (2004b). Emerging Academic Mobility Patterns: What Will Academic Mobility Mean in the 21st
Century? Conference Paper:17th CHER Annual Conference. Enschede, NL.
95
Hoffman, D. (2004c). Internationalization at Home, Internationally Attractive Academic Workplaces and
Immigrant Academic Employees: Emerging Notions and Perspectives in the European Educaton and Research
Area. Case Study Protocol presented at Early Stage Research Mobility 2004 Conference. Lisbon, Portugal.
Holzmann, R. and R. Münz (2004). Challenges and Opportunities of International Migration for the EU, Its
Member States, Neighboring Countries and Regions: A Policy Note. Stockholm, INSTITUTE FOR FUTURE
STUDIES.
Kivinen, O. and P. Kaipainen (2002). Universities, universities, universities: The multifacted world of universities.
Conference papers: 15th CHER Annual conference. Vienna, Austria.
Lehtonen, T., (Ed.) (1999). Europe's Northern Frontier. Jyväskylä, Finland, Kustannus.
Loima, J., Bernhard, A. Hoffman, D. and Cai, Y. (2005). Higher Education Planning, Budgeting and Finance Meet
the Sociological Imagination: A Study on National Steering and Financing Mechanisms. Viikki Teacher Training
School Publications (forthcoming) May 2005: 2.
Marcus, J. (2004). Intellectual Cream Rises to the Top. The Times Higher Education Supplement. November 2004:
7.
Marshall, G. (1994). Oxford Concise Dictionary of Sociology. New York, USA, Oxford University Press.
Musselin, C. (2004). “Torwards a European Labour Market? Some Lessons drawn from Empirical Studies on
Academic Mobility.” Higher Education 48: 55-78.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, et al. (2001). Re-thinking science : knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty.
Cambridge, Polity 2001.
Phillips, E. and D. Pugh (1987). How to get a PhD. Buckingham, UK, Open University Press.
Pulkkinen, T. (1999). One Language, One Mind., T. (Ed.) Europe's Northern Frontier. In Lehtonen Jyväskylä,
Finland, Kustannus: 118-137.
Puustinen-Hopper, K. (2005). Mobile Minds: Survey of foreign PhD students and researchers in Finland. Helsinki,
Academy of Finland. 1/2005.
Raunio, M. (2003). Should I Stay or Should I Go? English Summary (Research Unit For Urban and Regional
Development Studies). Tampere.
Rist, R. (1998). Influencing the Policy Process with Qualitative Research. In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (Eds)
Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications: 400-424.
Rosenberg, A. (1995). Philosophy of social science. Boulder, Colo., Westview Press.
Sabour, M. (1999). The Socio-Cultural Exclusion and Self Exclusion of Foreigners in Finland: The Case of
Joensuu. In Littlewood, P., Glorieux, I., Herkommer S. and Jönsson, I. (Eds.) Social Exclusion in Europe: Problems
and Paradigms. Burlington,VE, Ashgate: 219-247.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York,
Doubleday/Currency.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university.
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
Suurpää, L. (2002). Erilaisuuden hierarkiat : suomalaisia käsityksiä maahanmuuttajista, suvaitsevaisuudesta ja
rasismista. Helsinki, Finland, Nuorisotutkimusverkosto.
Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (Eds.) (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research.
Thousand Oaks, Calif., SAGE Publications.
96
Teichler, U. (1996). Research on Academic Mobility and International Cooperation in Higher Education: An
Agenda for the Future. In Blumenthal, P., Goodwin, C. et al., (Eds.) Academic mobility in a changing world :
regional and global trends. London ; Bristol, Pa., J. Kingsley Publishers: 338-358.
Teichler, U. (2000). Higher Education Research and its Institutonal Basis. In Schwarz, S. and Teichler, U. (Eds.)
The institutional basis of higher education research : experiences and perspectives. Boston, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Wahlbeck, Ö. (2002). Local integration and the globalization of migration: Immigrants in Finland in the 1990s.
Keynote address: Nordic Migration Conference, Helsinki, Finland, CEREN, University of Helsinki.
Välimaa, J. (2001a). The changing nature of academic employment in Finnish higher education. In Enders, J. (Ed.)
Academic staff in Europe: Changing contexts and conditions. Westport, Greenwood Press: 67-90.
Välimaa, J. (2001b). A Historical Introduction to Finnish Higher Education. In Välimaa, J. (Ed.) Finnish Higher
Education in Transition: Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational
Research: 13-53.
Välimaa, J., Hoffman, D. and Huusko, M. (2004). The Bologna Process in Finland - Perspectives from Basic Units.
Conference Paper Presented at 2004 EAIR Conference. Barcelona.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research : Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA, Sage Publications.
Ylijoki, O. (2003). “Entangled in academic capitalism? A case study on changing ideals and practices of university
research.” Higher Education 45(3): 307-335.
97
European Researchers’ Mobility: the Italian Case
M. Carolina Brandi
Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies - National Research Council
Via Nizza 128 – 00198 Rome Italy
c.brandi@irpps.cnr.it; carlotta.brandi@fastwebnet.it
Loredana Cerbara
Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies - National Research Council
Via Nizza 128 – 00198 Rome Italy
l.cerbara@irpps.cnr.it
Abstract
We present the results of a survey of the foreign presence in the Italian public research institutions, trying to
understand the actual push and pull factors that originate the migration. The Italian institutes are chosen as a place
for the completion of research training by many young academics from EU countries, particularly from France,
Germany and Spain. In addition, there is a significant inflow of mature academics, mainly from East Europe, who
come to Italy for the prestige of some of our research institutes and the availability of quality instrumentation.
However, the number of foreign researchers intending to permanently settle down in Italy is low. This fact could be
ascribed to the low salaries and to the unlikelihood of permanent or long term contracts in Italian institutes, the
same reasons provoking the outflow of Italian researchers, much higher than the foreign researchers immigration.
The MDS technique shows that we can group push factors into one indicator, representing the migration push in
total. About pull factors, the results suggest two different indicators: the first represents the quality of research, the
second is linked to political aspects. We conclude that foreign researchers are attracted to Italy, especially for our
research quality, while push factors are less important for highly skilled migrants.
Introduction
Italy was and still is a country characterised by a considerable outflow of researchers and other highly
qualified experts. Nevertheless, this outflow of human resources for science and technology could be at least
partially compensated by the simultaneous influx of foreign researchers, as happens, for example, in the UK.
The most probable destination of these potential flows would inevitably be the Public Research Institutions,
where the involvement of foreign researchers would not be hindered either by the need to undertake teaching
in a not very widely-known language like Italian (as would happen in the Universities) or by the lack of
research investments by the Italian industrial system. On the other hand, numerous Italian Research
Institutions are undoubtedly centres of excellence in their respective scientific sectors, and there would be no
lack of a potential capacity of attraction for foreign researchers. In the context of studies on the relationship
between the mobility of skills and the international scientific circuit, a survey has been conducted on foreign
researchers in public research institutions in Italy, to which no quantitative study has ever been dedicated up
to now.
Answers
Of the 459 research structures situated throughout the country that received the questionnaire, only 60
failed to respond, while 268 reported that they had no foreign workers in the period in question. Out of a total
of 378 foreign researchers employed in the remaining 131 research structures, 241 responded to the
questionnaire (figure 1).
Among European Union citizens, the most numerous were the French, Germans, and Spanish who,
together, account for 63.3 per cent of EU research workers in Italy. Of the other European countries, the
majority (74.4 per cent) came from Russia, Romania and Albania. Of those from the Far East, the vast
majority (75.9 per cent) came from China. Across the entire spectrum of nationalities, women were
considerably fewer in number than men.
98
Far East
12%
Africa, Middle
East
6%
North America
and Australia
4%
Central and South
America
10%
European Union
33%
Other European
Countries
35%
Figure 1 - Foreign Researchers by Citizenship
The foreign scientists who responded to our survey had an average age of 36 years (figure 2). Foreign
research workers from member states of the European Union were notably younger than those from other
countries, and 40 per cent of them were under 30. The majority of other foreign workers belonged to the 31-40
age group, though some were older than 40. Women were on average younger than their male colleagues: 40
per cent of foreign female researchers in Italy were under 30 compared to 24.2 per cent of their male
counterparts.
As regards the fields of scientific inquiry, the foreign researchers in Italy operate mainly in Physics,
Biology, Chemistry and Engineering. These are the very same disciplines that have been able to amass most
resources in recent decades, and are therefore best placed to cultivate international contacts.
The length of stay
We found that only a minority of our sample (16.2 per cent) expected to stay in Italy for more than
five years, and a sizeable group (37.3 per cent) planned to remain for less than one year. A breakdown by
nationality suggests that some differences exist in the length of stay depending on the country of origin.
Citizens of non-EU states in particular showed a certain tendency to remain either for very brief or for very
long periods, whereas researchers from EU countries spend an average of 1 or 2-3 years in Italy. Women tend
to stay in Italy less than men: 48.1 per cent planned to remain for only a year (compared to 32 per cent of
men) and 29.6 per cent for a period of more than one but less than three years (men: 33.3 per cent).
Push and Pull Factors
One of the most interesting questions we posed in our survey asked interviewees to state their chief
motivation for leaving their home country. The motivation advanced by the largest number of respondents
(figure 3) was a desire to institute contacts with other research environments, which more than half the sample
considered very important, and 30.6 per cent considered fairly important. A smaller but significant number of
respondents (29.4 per cent) indicated an ambition to specialise in a field that was insufficiently developed in
their home country as the chief deciding factor, and 28.9 per cent considered this fairly important. Similarly,
the desire to have greater freedom in work and life was a very or fairly important factor for 54.0 per cent of
our sample. The survey found that very few of the respondents cited difficulty in finding work adequate to
their qualifications in their home country as their main reason for leaving. Economic considerations also came
well down in the scale of priorities, which is hardly surprising given the low salaries of scientific workers in
Italy. The number of those who cited political reasons or the desire to join family members was negligible.
99
45
40
35
Number
30
25
<30
31-40
41-50
> 51
20
15
10
5
0
Africa and
Middle East
North
America and
Australia
South and
Central
America
European
Union
Other
European
Countries
Far East
Figure 2 - Foreign Researchers by Age and Citizenship
d) Economic reasons
15.9
c) Difficulties in finding a
qualified job
24.9
12.4
59.2
21.3
b) To be involved in
another research mileu
66.3
54.6
a) Specialise in a sector
not enough developed
home
30.6
29.4
0%
10%
28.9
20%
30%
Strongly
40%
Medium
14.8
41.7
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
At all
Figure 3 - Question 20 - Please state how much each of these reasons has influenced your decision to leave
your Country (Push Factors)
Among the diverse factors encouraging researchers to leave their home countries, we found that
instituting contacts with a different scientific environment, while of importance for our sample as a whole,
was decisive among those who intended to remain in Italy for less than a year. If we measure this factor on a
scale of relevance ranging from 1 to 3, we find that those planning to stay in Italy for less than one year
accorded it a value of 2.7. Conversely, difficulty in finding suitably qualified work in the home country was of
practically no relevance (score: 1.1) for those intending to stay in Italy for one year or less. Similarly,
economic considerations were of negligible importance for those planning short-term stays, who thus rated it
with a relevance value of just 1.3, but were rather more important for those intending to remain in the country
for longer (1.6-1.7).
Regarding the push factors that led the respondents to leave their country of origin, we found that the
geographical location of the country of origin made a difference. For example, difficulty in finding work
adequate to qualifications, which measured extremely low on the scale of relevance for the sample as a whole,
100
nonetheless had a rather significant relevance for researchers from EU countries. On the other hand, economic
considerations were not important for these researchers, which is in keeping with the average for the sample
as a whole, but out of step with researchers – especially if male - from European countries outside the EU,
who attach considerable importance to economic considerations.
d) Study and scientific
opportunities in Italy
46.4
c) Availability of scientific
equipment
38.9
37.3
b) Italy is in the forefront for
your research sector
37.3
24.2
a) Invitation by an Italian
institution
10%
25
50.7
48.3
0%
14.7
20%
Strongly
25.1
19
30%
40%
Medium
50%
60%
32.7
70%
80%
90%
100%
At all
Figure 4 – Question 21 a – Please state how much each of these factors has determined your choice of coming
to Italy
With respect to the professional factors that drew the migrants to Italy, a large proportion of
interviewees (figure 4) declared that they had chosen this country because they felt it offered good or excellent
opportunities for study and scientific training, and this is an extremely significant finding. Invitations from
Italian research institutes were also decisive, being considered very important by 48.3 per cent of the
interviewees, and fairly important by 19 per cent. Further, many of the respondents believed that Italy was at
the forefront of scientific research in their field. The availability of scientific equipment was very important
for 37.3 per cent and fairly important for 37.7 per cent of those who chose Italy as their destination. With
respect to the non-professional factors that drew the immigrants to Italy, the only factor with any real weight
was a sense of cultural affinity. Knowledge of the Italian language and geographic proximity were not
important factors.
The respondents did not report having been attracted to Italy as a country that was easy to enter and
reside in - perhaps because Italy is not, in fact, easy for foreign workers to enter. Our survey turned up very
few cases of people coming to the country owing to the Italian origins of their family. Similarly, very few
came to Italy because they had married an Italian citizen or because they were accompanying a spouse who
had found work in Italy.
The professional pull factors showed few variations between one discipline and another, though the
few exceptions are interesting. For example, the fact that Italy is advanced in a given area of science was
considered fairly important by all immigrant researchers, but in certain fields such as agriculture and human
and social sciences, it was one of the most important factors of all.
Geographical origins do not seem to have a great influence on the decision to choose Italy as a
country of destination. Nonetheless, it ought to be noted that the availability of scientific equipment was
important for a higher percentage of non-EU than EU citizens (apart from those from North America). The
existence of bilateral agreements for scientific co-operation was considered a fairly important factor by
citizens from non-EU countries, but not by those from EU countries.
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of the Push and Pull factors
Considering the particular impact of the variables of the push-pull factors in this research study, we
decided to calculate summary indicators. Since they are variables that can be assimilated to scales because
they have different degrees of response (‘not at all’, ‘enough’, ‘very much’), we applied the Multidimensional
Scaling Analysis (MDS) to these variables considered as numbers. This led to a test on the dimension of the
overall ‘push-pull factor’ phenomenon underlying the data. The analysis was applied to Questions 20 (push
101
factors) and 21 (pull factors of the professional and socio-cultural type) of the questionnaire, seeking for both
the optimal number of indicators in which the data can be summarised.
With regard to the push factors, it was observed that the maximum information is acquired by using a
single push indicator (just one dimension), obtained by aggregating the items composing Question 20, for
example through a simple arithmetic average. The analysis of the internal consistency has further confirmed
this result since the Cronbach’s α-value is 0.1467, a value considered very low and also an indication of good
reliability.
Figure 5 - Common space coordinates
Invitation by an
Italian
institution
1
More stable job
opportunities
Availability of
scientific equipment
0
Study and
scientific
opportunities
in Italy
Italy is in the
forefront for your
research sector
Bilateral agreements
between Italy and your
Country
-1
-1
0
1
With regard to the professional-type pull factors, the application of the multidimensional scaling
analysis suggests the use of two different indicators (figure 5) since the best result is achieved with two
dimensions of data. We should therefore identify which of the pull factors should be included in each of the
two groups. The graph showing the common space indicates how the items should be grouped in order to
obtain the two indicators sought. The first indicator concerns what we can call the “Quality of the research”,
since it groups the “Study and scientific opportunities in Italy”, the “Availability of scientific equipment”, the
opinion that “Italy is in the forefront on the research sector” and the “Invitation by an Italian institution”; The
second one is more connected with political factors, grouping the “More stable job opportunities” and the
“Bilateral agreements”. We considered just the first indicator as the second one has a very simple structure
and it is unable to add contents to this work which could not be derived from an analysis of the single items.
The internal size of the first group is acceptable since the Cronbach’s α-value is 0.5253.
Push factors answer tree
We can make a more in-depth analysis using a classification technique called the Answer Tree, which
allows for the classification of the interviewees. It is a technique based on optimisation algorithms allowing
for the ‘typing’ of the interviewees according to the characteristics (predictors) shown to be the most suited to
explain a variable selected as the basis for the study (objective). Selecting as the objective variables the two
push and pull indicators defined previously, we can construct a tree in which the leaves are formed by the
interviewees having specific characteristics covered in our study.
This application highlights (figure 6) how in general the push indicator is constantly under the central
value of its range of variation. The tree also shows that this indicator in the sample has a distribution
depending first of all on age, which is the main variable in the determination of the subgroups most
concerned, since it determines the first-level subdivision of the tree (for the age group between 30 and 40, it
has higher average values than in the other ages). In the second place, the gender variable can determine the
subgroups of interviewees showing the most significant differences for the push indicator. The women aged
over 40, in fact, show the absolutely lowest values for the push indicator. In other words, we have identified a
group of interviewees (women aged 40 and over) who, though not very numerous, show values for the push
indicator that are very different with respect to the rest of the sample (in this case, they are particularly low
values).
102
Push factors answer tree
Push 1.62
N. of cases 186
Grouping by age
Push 1.65
N. of cases 145
Under 40 years old
Push
1.51
N. of cases 41
Over 40 years old
Grouping by sex
Push 1.57
N. of cases 33
Males
Push
1.25
N. of cases 8
Females
Figure 6 – Push factors answer tree
Pull factors answer tree
The application of the Answer tree technique to the pull indicator shows that it assumes higher
average values in general, with respect to the push indicator. The general average is, in fact, around the central
value of the indicator-variation range, but there are many groupings above it. This would already be enough
for the greater tendency among our interviewees to the pull factors compared to the push factors. The variable
leading to the first subdivision in this case is the geographical area of origin generating two major groupings:
North America, Australia and the European Union in which the value for these factors is definitely lower than
the general average and “Other Countries” with an average value of the indicator amounting to 2.28.
However, there are two profiles having the most characteristic average values of the indicator. On the
one hand, there are researchers with a long duration of stay and who come from European countries or North
America, thus having lower values, without the typical pull factors towards Italy, evidently remaining in the
country for other reasons. On the other hand, there are the researchers who live alone and come from “Other
Countries” and who, on the contrary, are very close to the reasons for remaining in Italy summarised in this
indicator.
Pull factors answer tree
Pull
2.12
N. of cases 193
Grouping by
citizenship
Pull
2.28
N. of cases 113
Africa, Far East, Middle East, South
America, Other European Countries
Pull
1.89
N. of cases 80
European Union, North
America, Australia
Grouping by living
arrangement
Pull
2.43
N. of cases 53
Living alone
Pull
2.15
N. of cases 60
Living with spouse
or partner
Pull
2.01
N. of cases 53
Up to 9 years
in Italy
Figure 7 – Pull factors answer tree
103
Pull
1.66
N. of cases 27
Over 9 years
in Italy
Grouping by
length of
staying
Difficulties encountered by foreign researchers
With reference to the difficulties that they encountered during their stay in Italy (figure 8), many
interviewees mentioned the inconveniences involved in obtaining work papers and permits of stay, as well as
Italian bureaucracy in general. These problems provoked strong denunciations from many non-EU research
scientists (and in particular from the few research workers from North America).
Surprisingly, while these bureaucratic impediments were also considered important by researchers
from European Union countries. It was certainly no surprise to find that almost all the interviewees mentioned
finding affordable accommodation as one of their main problems, and for workers from EU countries, it was
by far the most frequently mentioned difficulty. Other possible sources of difficulties, such as the language,
the lack of information about Italy before travelling to the country, or problems relating to the family, did not
figure in any statistically relevant manner.
g) Housing availability and costs
24.9
f) Language
40.2
17.9
31.1
c) Visa/work permit
administrative/bureaucratic paperwork in
Italy
50.9
29.4
b) Visa/work permit
administrative/bureaucratic paperwork in
your Country
9.3
0%
34.9
33.8
36.8
20.6
10%
20%
70.1
30%
High difficulty
40%
50%
Medium difficulty
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No difficulty
Figure 8 - Question 22 - Please indicate which difficulties have you experienced relocating in Italy
Some of the difficulties encountered were, naturally enough, directly related to the duration of the
researcher’s stay in the country (figure 9). The bureaucracy involved in obtaining a visa and permit of stay in
Italy was of minor importance for those planning to remain in Italy for one year or less, but became
increasingly important as the visiting period increased in length.
1.4
1.2
Index
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Length of Staying (months)
Figure 9 - Bureaucratic difficulties in Italy
104
120
140
Brain Drain
A large majority of interviewees (71 per cent) intended to return to the country of origin (figure 10).
The completion of the period of time decided in advance was considered a very compelling reason for
returning home by 60.9 per cent of respondents and fairly compelling by 26.7 per cent.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
a) You have finished your
study/work period
b) You have met your scientific c) Job opportunities have arised
goals
in your Country
High importance
Medium importance
d) Familiar ties
Not relevant
Figure 10 - Question 23 - Are you planning to return to your Country? If yes please indicate the importance
of the following reasons:
The percentage of those who said the brain drain was considered a major problem in their home
country was 68.7 per cent. By and large, most of us will concur with these claims: opportunities for
employment in the world of research are lacking, funds are scarce and the policies of national governments
pay insufficient heed to the problems of the scientific community and, especially, the field of pure research
(figure 11).
Question 25 - Do you think that you staying abroad
for your Country of origin
Question 26 - Is the brain drain a problem in
your Country of origin?
b) Has been
a
gain/advanta
ge
66%
a) Has been
a
loss/damage
15%
Yes
69%
c) Has had
no influence
19%
No
31%
Figure 11
105
These failings drive many to look farther a field, particularly to the United States, for better
opportunities. It is interesting that this analysis of the situation holds true not only for researchers in East
Europe and Developing Countries, but also for their counterparts in European Union member states,
especially those in the south (Spain, Portugal and Greece).
Conclusions
The results of the analysis presented in this paper, though regarding the specific and, in some
respects, unusual case like the Italian public research institutions - whose development is often conditioned by
a chronic lack of resources - nevertheless enable us to draw interesting conclusions which can probably be
extended to more general cases.
Firstly, the analysis conducted by the CNR highlights that the migration of researchers, unlike other
professional categories, is significantly determined more by pull than by push factors. According to the
results, it seems that once an adequate salary level is guaranteed, researchers tend to move to foreign
institutions above all due to the opportunities provided to profitably do their work rather than to the need to
improve their career prospects, as commonly happens in the case of the migrations of other professionals
(Koser & Salt, 1999). Furthermore, in the migration of scientists, the “scientific networks” (i.e., direct
contacts between researchers and research institutions) are the most important channels of mobility, while in
the migration of professionals the intermediation agencies play a fundamental role (Iredale, 2001).
As for scientists, at least in the cases analysed, it is easy to distinguish between those who reside
abroad for a certain number of years ( “skilled transients”) and those who stay in a foreign country only for
short periods (“visitors”). Appleyard (1985) has already pointed out that for the other professionals, for whom
temporary mobility is the dominant form of migration as in the case of researchers, this difference is
disappearing. In the sector analysed, it is also clear that researchers distinguish very well between temporary
mobility, positive for the person concerned and his/her country, and the “brain drain”, considered to be a
negative phenomenon due to mistaken policies.
The Multidimensional Scaling Analysis (MDS) technique, used in this study, show that all the push
factors can be grouped in a single indicator of the pressure to migrate because of any reason, while the
professional pull factors can be grouped in two indicators: the first is related to the quality of the research that
can be performed in Italy; and the second is linked to some political aspects and seems to be much less
relevant. The Answer tree technique then shows how the pull factors are more important than the push factors,
or, in other words, how the foreign researchers present in the Italian public research institutions are working in
Italy mainly because they were attracted by the quality of the research that can be performed here and not
because they were pushed to leave their countries because of any reason.
Finally, comments by the interviewees clearly show the favourable attitude towards foreigners, not
only in the job context but generally in the society where they are integrated. Such attitude is highly
appreciated and may compensate other types of difficulties (for example, a very heavy bureaucracy) which
migrants encounter when they move. Moreover, this attitude is a significant factor of attraction also in other
types of “skilled migration”64.
The CNR survey leads us to conclude that the geographical mobility of scientists is basically linked to
the process of the internationalisation of research agencies, which is very advanced and which leads
researchers to basically feel that they are members of a community more linked by interests, behaviour, and
common language than separated by national identity. The international mobility of researchers may therefore
probably be considered as the most developed form of “migration of skills”.
The Italian system of research institutions seems to be fully inserted in this context. These research
institutions are basically chosen by many young researchers coming from EU countries as the place to
‘migrate’ to complete their studies, especially those countries like France, Germany and Spain that are linked
to Italy by longstanding cultural contacts. These institutions welcome a flow of mature researchers from
countries in Eastern Europe and in some non-European countries, who come to Italy mainly for the scientific
prestige of certain Italian research institutions and for the quality of the equipment available. Nevertheless, at
least up to now, Italy does not seem to be a country attracting “brain drains”, not even from the less
economically developed countries, since the number of foreign researchers who intend to settle permanently
64
For example, Hooper (2001) attributes the substantial failure of the programme to attract Indian computer experts to Germany because the
media convey the impression that German society is basically closed to foreigners, although no one can doubt the high quality of the German
research system.
106
or for an extended period of time in Italy is definitely low. Considering the appreciation by the interviewees
for Italy’s scientific institutions, the equipment available and the quality of life in Italy, the main reasons for
this evidence should probably be sought in wage standards which are inadequate with respect to the cost of
living (and in particular the cost of housing), and in the poor chances for an open-ended or long-term
employment contract offered by the Italian public research institutions. These are the same reasons which
trigger the significant outflow of Italian researchers, whose number is considerably higher than that of foreign
researchers migrating to Italy.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Cristiana Crescimbene for technical support and data mining.
References
Appleyard R. (May 1985), Processes and determinants of international migration, paper presented to the IUSSP
seminar on Emerging Issues in International Migration, Bellagio.
Brandi M.C. (2004), La mobilità dei ricercatori: una ricerca empirica negli Enti Pubblici di ricerca nel 2001 in
Ancona G., Pace R. (a cura di) Mobilità, Sviluppo e Partecipazione, Quaderno n. 29 del Dipartimento per lo Studio
delle Società Mediterranee, Università degli Studi di Bari, Cacucci ed., Bari.
Hooper J. (2001), Germany to offer permanent future to skilled migrants, The Guardian, 5 July: 12.
Iredale R., The Migration of Professionals: Theories and Typologies, International Migration quarterly review vol.
39, n.5 Special Issue 1/2001.
Koser K; Salt J. (1997), The geography of highly skilled international migration, International Journal of
Population Geography, vol. 3. N. 4, pp. 285-303.
107
The Greek Researchers’ Mobility Centres Network:
PYTHEAS Project
Dimitrios Sanopoulos
Centre for Research and Technology Hellas
Coordinator of the Greek Mobility Centres Network
6th km Harilaou – Thermi Road
P.O. Box 361, GR-57001, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece
e-mail: sanopoul@certh.gr
Abstract
In the context of the Lisbon Summit (March 2000) and Commission’s proposal of setting up the European Research
Area and the recognition of the great importance that human resources and mobility have for the creation of a
Knowledge-Based Europe a certain conclusion has came up: Every member state of the E.U. should promote the
improvement of the legislative, regulatory and administrative environment of researcher’s mobility and the
practical assistance together with the information dissemination to mobile researchers.
In Greece, the up to now situation in ground of researchers’ free and with no barriers mobility within the European
Research Area, was characterized by the lack of organized structures for information gathering and dissemination to
researchers and of collaboration between all the public organizations implicated in researchers’ mobility issues.
The creation of the Greek Mobility Centres Network, which is part of the ERAMORE Network has as basic
mission to develop an organized structure that will offer global and integrated services of information and
proximity assistance to researchers in matters such as, entry conditions, visas, work permits, recognition of
diplomas, job opportunities, salaries, taxation, pension rights, health care, social security, accommodation, day care,
schooling, language courses, and access to the culture of the host country, according to the Lisbon Mandate.
Moreover, the Greek Network is reinforced by the application of PYTHEAS Project, which stimulates the Greek
Mobility Centers Network as part of the European Network of Mobility Centers (ERAMORE) and develops
informational services and tools like thematic guides, useful directories, library services, help desk etc. PYTHEAS
Project increases the Network’s potential to provide substantial and up to date information and assistance to the
mobile researchers.
Additionally, a National Researchers’ Mobility Portal (http://www.eracarreers.gr/) was created, as the interface of
the whole PYTHEAS project and with main objective, the development of a friendly environment for equal career
opportunities for the researchers in the integrated European Research Area, providing all the necessary information
mentioned above.
To conclude, the development of a well-structured Greek National Mobility Network in consistence with the basic
criteria posed by the European Network creates an effective tool capable to encourage the mobility of researchers
and have as main impact to achieve brain gain and to eliminate brain drain.
Introduction
Until recently, the situation in Greece in terms of information provision and proximity assistance to
researchers, was characterized by the following:
No organized structures offering global and integrated services of information and proximity
assistance to researchers could be detected. There were only few organizations covering limited services. On
the other hand, many important obstacles concerning mobility were identified, since there is a gap of specific
rules or procedures to facilitate researchers. Issues of pension rights, day care systems, education, and job
opportunities for the accompanying persons are not dealt at all or are limited and partially offered.
Although institutions are highly research oriented, there were no administrative services at central
level, which could provide coherent information and guidance of all administrative aspects pertaining the
108
mobility of researchers. The existing structures were dispersed, with no structural links and sometimes with
overlapping of activities. Admissions modalities were complicated and the authorities involved at local level
were poorly organized and informed.
Lack of communication and information exchange between the Ministries which produce the laws
(Foreign Affairs, Labour & Social Affairs, Internal Affairs) and the authorities, which enforce the laws at
regional level, is another serious problem. In addition, there is lack of structural communication between the
authorities locally and regionally that produces a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy, conflicting information, time
and energy consuming procedures.
Greek Researchers’ Mobility Centres Network
The Greek Mobility Centres Network could be an effective tool for overcoming the above-mentioned
difficulties. The mission of the Greek Mobility Centres Network, which is part of the European Network of
Mobility Centres (ERAMORE)65, lies upon the development of an organized structure capable of offering
global and integrated services of information and proximity assistance to mobile researchers in issues
concerning the entry conditions in the host countries of mobile researchers: visas, work permits, recognition of
diplomas, job opportunities, salaries, taxation, pension rights, health care, social security, accommodation, day
care, schooling, language courses, and access to the culture of the host country. Other objectives are:
• Consultation, in matters such as various categories of mobstacles which researchers face during their
mobility experience
• Consultation in terms of problems related to the development of researchers career in Greece
• Awareness mechanisms for the Greek network and Portal, to young researchers in Greece and abroad
• Assistance actions to promote the dialogue between Science and Society – collaboration in awareness
activities
• The stages through which the formulation of the Network was achieved, are described in the table
below:
Table 1: Short History of Greek Mobility Centres Network Development
MARCH 2000: CERTH (Centre of Research and Technology Hellas) participates in the Greek delegation in
the 1st Meeting of the EC Steering Group of the Mobility of Researchers and is the coordinator of the Greek
Mobility Network (Bridgehead Organization)
JUNE - SEPTEMBER 2002: Mapping Exercise for the identification of portals to be linked at the European
Mobility Portal
SEPTEMBER 2002: CERTH is designated by GSRT as the Bridgehead Organization of the Greek Mobility
Centres Network
DECEMBER 2002 – APRIL 2003: Mapping Exercise for the identification of the members to be consist the
National Network
MAY 2003: The Greek National Network was founded
JUNE 2003: Submission of the PYTHEAS proposal by CERTH for financing of the National Network by the
European Commission
AUGUST 28, 2003: PYTHEAS Proposal approval
SEPTEMBER 2003: Procedures for the negotiations with the European Commission
SEPTEMBER 30, 2003: - Kick off meeting of the National Network and Presentation of the first draft
prototype
DECEMBER 05, 2003: Contract of PYTHEAS Project signing with the EE
More analytically, CERTH in collaboration with the General Secretariat of Research and Technology
accomplished the identification and nomination of the organizations, which should host the new mobility
centres, of the Greek Researcher’s Mobility Centres Network. The following criteria of general acceptance
were used:
65
The development of ERAMORE Network derives from the Lisbon Mandate as described in the Commission’s Communication “A Mobility
Strategy for the European Research Area”, which aims at establishing the dynamics required to set up and develop a favourable environment for
mobile researchers throughout their careers
109
•
•
•
•
Effectiveness
Viability
Geographical coverage
Sectorial coverage
It is very important to say, that comparing with the other countries participating in ERAMORE,
Greece is a country of a rather medium size. Therefore the national network has to be manageable consisting
of relative limited number of MoCs to enhance the effective operation in terms of information exchange and
good practice between the nodes.
Also, Greece has a rather peculiar geographical distribution with the mainland and the hundreds of
inhabited islands scattered in two archipelagos. Additionally, more than 70% of the population is concentrated
in few big cities. Greece has a centralized administrative system therefore the majority of the structures
identified by the mapping exercise are concentrated to the big cities. Taking under consideration all these
parameters, the country was divided in 6 regions. In each region there were nominated one, two or three
MoCs, at maximum.
For the sectorial distribution the following were taken under consideration:
• Adequate representation of academic and research organizations should be ensured. In case of the
Greek network 8 from the 10 total entities represent such organizations.
• The participation of the Association of Industries of Northern Greece and PRAXIS Network enhances
network operability in issues related to intersectorial mobility of researchers from Research to
Industry and vice versa.
• OBI has a special role, providing services in terms of intellectual property rights.
In the figure below the geographical zones of responsibilities of each Mobility Center are depicted:
Zone 1
CERTH, AUTH, FING
City: Thessaloniki
Zone 2
DUTH
City: Xanthi
Zone 3
UPAT
City: Patras
Zone 4
UTH
City: Volos
Zone 5
NHRF, OBI
City: Athens
Zone 6
UOC, FORTH/PRAXIS
City: Herakleion
110
The role of each mobility centre
CERTH is the Bridgehead Organization of the Network and the Coordinator of the PYTHEAS project. Its
role is to actively contribute to the support of Mobility Centers within the National Network providing any
possible assistance to the individual MoCs (consulting, personnel training, continuous awareness, etc.). The
rest key players and partners of the Greek Mobility Centers Network and their specific role (additionally to
their mission) are described as follows:
AUTH, is activated in the regions of Central Macedonia and Western Macedonia and provides the following
special services: Language sources to the researchers and their facilities (School of Modern Greek Language)
Personal assistance for solving various practical problems (social security, taxation etc.) Accommodation,
medical and health care, reduced prices in public transportation. Additionally, AUTH has established a
Reception Office within the mobility centre of A.U.T.H. (http://mobility.rc.auth.gr) as follows:
DUTH is the MoC covering the regions of Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. (http://mobility.duth.gr/)
NHRF is the MoC, which covers the region of Attica. The National Hellenic Research Foundation (NHRF)
plays the role of the link between the Network, and the governmental and administrative services (ministries,
public organizations, etc.). (http://www.eie.gr/mobility-portal/index.html)
FING is a MoC with a specific role related to industrial issues. In detail FING provides information on
vacancies for researchers in industrial sector, economic climate of industrial sector of Northern Greece
(growth indicators, investments, etc.), general economic climate of Northern Greece (employment
possibilities, growth indicators by sector, etc.), issues concerning social legislation in Greece, issues
concerning labour and insurance legislation in Greece, issues concerning tax regulations in Greece.
(http://www.sbbe.gr/mip_en.asp?Lang=En)
OBI, is a MoC providing information and assistance about all aspects, related to IPR and industrial property
rights in Greece. (http://www.obi.gr/online/generic.asp?id=153&mid=240)
UPAT is the MoC, which covers the region of Peloponnese, Western Greece, Epirous
and Ionian Islands
UTH covers the regions of Thessaly, Central Greece, Northern Aegean Islands and Southern Aegean Islands.
(http://ee.uth.gr/mobility/)
FORTH / PRAXIS is a MoC active at national level since, in addition to the
typical role as Mobility Centre, has a special role related to intersectorial mobility.
UOC is the MoC responsible for the region of Creta. (http://mobility.elke.uoc.gr/)
In the following figure the graphical presentation of the Greek Network in full operation, with all the main
stakeholders, is depicted.
PYTHEAS Project
PYTHEAS is a Project aiming at the stimulation of the Greek Mobility Centers Network as part of the
European Network of Mobility Centers (ERAMORE).
The project implements the following activities:
• Setting up of a national network of Mobility Centres
• Providing tools and training for the effective running of the network
• Developing a national Mobility Portal to be linked to the European Portal,
• Developing information material for the target groups
• Developing cooperation with information providers including political stakeholders
-Organizing an awareness-raising campaign about the national and European initiatives to promote
researchers’ mobility.
The main characteristics of PYTHEAS Project are the following:
Title: The Development and the Operation of the Greek National Mobility Centres Network – “PYTHEAS”
Coordinator: Centre for Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH)
Number of Participants: 10
Funding Organization: EC, General Secretariat for Research and Technology
Call ID: FP6-2003-MOBILITY-CENTERS
Total Budget: 647.000 €
EC
Funding: ~ 200.000 €
Total Duration: 36 Months
111
Graphical Presentation of Network Operation
EC
Focal Points
Information and
Assistance Providers
GSRT/GMD
ERA-MORE
MANAGEMENT
STRUCTURE
DUTH
UoC
BENEFICIERS
MOBILE RESEARCHERS
FORTH
NHRF/NDC
National Portal
CERTH
UTH
FING
UPAT
OBI
Information Providers in Greece
(National & European Portal)
AUTH
E.C.
GSRT/GMD
European Commission
General Secretariat for Research and
Technology / Greek Ministry of
Development
European Mobility
Policy
National mobility
policy
Management
activities
Information
exchange
Information
exchange and
managment
Collaboration with
other organizations
Members of the Network
CERTH
AUTH
DUTH
NHRF
FING
OBI
UPAT
UTH
FORTH
UOC
Centre for Research and Technology
Hellas
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Demokritos University of Thrace
National Hellenic Research
Foundation
Federation of Industries of Northern
Greece
Industrial Property Organization
University of Patras
University of Thessaly
Foundation for Research and
Technology Hellas
University of Crete
The year 2003 (December 2003) was the start –up year of PYTHEAS project’s implementation and
resulted into (between others) the development of the National Researchers’ Mobility Portal by CERTH
and the development of local Portals as well.
More analytically, the National Researchers’ Mobility Portal (http://www.eracarreers.gr/) is a mirror portal,
linked to the European one. The main objective of the Portal is the development of a friendly environment for
equal carrier opportunities for the researchers in the integrated European Research Area, providing all the
necessary information mentioned above.
More analytically, it provides a one-stop gateway to all authoritative information sources pertaining
to researchers’ mobility issues at a national, European and International level. It includes the following main
112
sub- items: Web links for fellowships and grants, research job opportunities, research policies, links to the
RJOE Tool, Balkan Research Centers Data Base, The Researchers Mobility Database, Helpdesk Link to the
European Mobility Portal, other National Portals and other useful links.
Other activities - Results
Other outcomes from PYTHEAS project are shortly presented as follows:
• Training of the MoC personnel in aspects relative to mobility problems and obstacles, IPR issues,
useful tools for the everyday job, like ERACAREERS Portal and ERAMORE, Help Desk, RJOE
Tool etc.
• Establishment of a dialog between the network and the national authorities (ministries, public
organizations) involved in researchers’ mobility issues and career development.
• Mapping exercises carried out for the identification of more information providers for both national
and European Mobility Portal.
• Collection of statistical data related to individual Mobility Centres Performance.
• Preparation of informative material (leaflets, CD and dissemination).
• The awareness activities intended in the promotion of the visibility of the ERA-MORE Network and
the Greek Network, the ERACAREERS Portal and the Greek Mobility Portal as well, carried out in
local, national and international level. The target groups of these activities were: Researchers,
Academia, Public Administration (Ministries, Governmental Organizations), Local Authorities,
Private Sector, Industry, Industrial Organizations and Public in General. The main awareness
activities were the Network Launching Event, two regional thematic workshops, presentations in
local events, one Marie Curie info day, presentations in international events, publications in
newspapers, media, special mailings etc.
• The cooperation with organizations (like Ministries and government institutions, organizations having
developed web-portals or databases of significant interest for the National Network, organizations
able to provide assistance to the researchers in terms of everyday life) and other networks (like Marie
Curie Fellowships Association and EURODOC), aimed at the finding of additional consultation, in
issues concerning the various categories of mobstacles which researchers face during their mobility
experience.
• The establishment of a Help desk at every node of the Network.
Future Activities
The future intentions of PYTHEAS project are:
More training seminars in specific issues.
Continuation of the activities implemented on regular basis like mapping exercise, improvement of
portal performance, enrichment of the electronic mobility library, collecting more signed quality
charters, increase the cooperation activities with other organizations or networks, statistics etc.
• Preparation of a practical guide for the Greek out going mobile researchers.
• Preparation of a guide for all the incoming researchers.
• Development of an electronic newsletter.
Publications in the Greek and international press
•
•
113
http://www.eracareers.gr
Home Page of the Greek Mobility Portal
Conclusions
The potential impact of the establishment of the Greek Researchers’ Mobility Network can be
summarized in the following:
The development of a well structured Greek National Mobility Network in consistence with the basic criteria
posed by the European Network, which are the geographical and thematical coverage in terms of an easy
manageable Network, creates an effective Network capable to satisfy the basic demands related to the general
mission of the European Network. Additionally, a well-structured national Network that is part of the PanEuropean Network of MoCs in the region of the Balkan Countries and in proximity with the countries of
Black Sea gives added value to the European Network.
Project PYTHEAS creates synergies with the ERACAREERS Mobility Portal by adding useful web
links resulted by the mapping exercise carried out by the members of the Network.
The development of other informational services and tools (except the portal), like thematic guides,
useful directories, library services, help desk etc., will allow the increase of the Network’s potential to provide
substantial and up to date information and assistance to the mobile researchers.
During this period form the start up of the network till now the main objective was to organize the
structures of the network in order to achieve maximum operability. The years to come will show networks
competence in accomplishing its mission by serving the mobile researchers
References
1) Towards a European network of mobility centers”, EC Document for general distribution, 2002
2) “Communication from the Commission: Europe and basic research” 2004 COM(2004) 9 final
3) “Commission staff working paper: first implementation report on a mobility strategy for the European
Research Area”, 2003
114
The international dimension in postgraduate research training: The case of
Nordic and Baltic countries
Aira Lepik
Graduate School of Social Sciences, Tallinn Pedagogical University
Tallinn, Estonia
Aira.Lepik@tpu.ee
Merle Pihlak
Graduate School of Social Sciences, Tallinn Pedagogical University
Tallinn, Estonia
Merle.Pihlak@tpu.ee
Abstract
The present paper will discuss the postgraduate research education of information professionals in Nordic and
Baltic countries by analyzing, first and foremost, NordIS-Net (1998-2002) and Nordic Research School in Library
and Information Science, NORSLIS, (2004-2008) - networks for postgraduate research training in library and
information sciences (LIS) - from the aspects of organization of training, mobility of researchers, and using and
sharing of resources.
Keywords: International postgraduate research training networks, library and information sciences.
Common European principles for postgraduate research training
Research training has become a major issue in research, research policy and postgraduate education
during the last twenty years – this has been the case in all the Nordic countries (Nordic ... 2003, Quality ...
2004), and world-wide as well (The Research ... 1993).
In terms of research, at the European Council meeting 2002 in Barcelona it was agreed that overall
spending on R&D and innovation in the EU should be raised to 3% of GDP by 2010 (Presidency ... 2002).
This requires not only increased investment, but also growth in the number of qualified researchers. Most
countries, including the Nordic countries, will have to raise the number of researchers if Europe is going to
meet the need of estimated 700 000 additional researchers, as outlined in the communication “Investing in
research: an action plan for Europe” (Investing ... 2003, 11). For example Denmark with some 27,000
researchers will need 45,000 researchers before 2010 if the 3% target is to be met (Nordic ...2003, 9). This
creates new challenges for the existing postgraduate training systems as the development of adequate research
training is becoming increasingly important.
In order to achieve this on the European scale two processes have begun to merge - creating a
European Research Area (ERA) and a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) as the two pillars of the
knowledge based society. This has not only created a renewed importance of the role of universities in terms
of their task of research and research training, it has also led to a closer scrutiny of the ways in which research
is currently organised (Kehm 2004, 3). Ministers meeting 2003 in Berlin conscious of the need to promote
closer links between the ERA and the EHEA and of the importance of research as an integral part of higher
education across Europe, emphasized the importance of research and research training and the promotion of
interdisciplinarity; they called for increased mobility at the doctoral and post-doctoral levels and encouraged
the institutions to increase their cooperation in doctoral studies and the training of young researchers. Finally
Ministers stated that networks at doctoral level should be given support to stimulate the development of
excellence. (Realising ... 2003, 7).
It has been understood that increased supply of qualified researchers as well as high quality research
training are important elements in order to realize the vision of a Europe of Knowledge. Issues or problems
discussed in terms of doctoral education today are at least twofold: (1) the first has to do with structure of
115
programs, funding and supervision in the process of getting a doctoral degree; (2) the second has to do with
transition into employment and adequate employment (Kehm 2004, 8). Mobility of researchers faces its own
problems, apart from the academic factors that affect mobility patterns; there are also practical and social
problems in relation to family obligations, language differences, welfare arrangements, and tax systems etc.,
which represent important barriers to mobility in research training (Barriers ... 2003).
In order to overcome the problems and reach the established goals the environment of research
training should find a balance between national and international, organization and flexibility, specific and
multidisciplinary. Therefore the needed changes in the doctoral education and training can be summarized as
follows:
• from national to international;
• from curiosity driven to result oriented (i.e. relevance, impact);
• from individual to team;
• from narrow and discipline guided to multidisciplinary research;
• from small laboratories to larger research institutes and programmes (i.e. critical mass);
• from fragments to programmes;
• from purely academic to also professional;
• from national guarding and use to competitiveness, job creation and sustainable development on a
broader scale (Kehm 2004, 8).
The EU level developments have influenced different fields of education and research. The Position
Paper of European Association for Library and Information Education and Research (EUCLID) focuses on the
importance of European standards for competencies needed by LIS-professionals in the information society.
EUCLID supports the processes promoting the development of curricula and comparable degree programs on
a European scale (Position ... 2003).
On national level in the Estonian Research and Development Strategy, a future Estonia is seen as a
knowledge-based society where the sources of economic and labour force competitiveness and improvement
in the quality of life, stem from the search for new knowledge, the application of knowledge and skills, and
the development of human capital. In a knowledge-based society research and development are valued highly
as one of the preconditions for functioning and development of society. (Teadmistepõhine ... 2001). In the
Strategic Foundations of Estonian Higher Education Policy, the need to develop doctoral studies is
emphasized in order to fulfil the needs of the society by increasing the effectiveness of studies and their
connectedness with research, by promoting international cooperation and academic mobility
(Kõrghariduspoliitika ... 2005).
NORSLIS (Nordic Research School in Library and Information Science) – vision and activities
The Nordic countries have long-standing, strong traditions of research co-operation and joint
activities in postgraduate research training. Virkus and Harbo pointed out that LIS institutions have not used
all possibilities offered in the Nordic higher education space and close co-operation between the countries
would offer opportunities to utilize the resources for the benefit of Europe as a whole (Virkus, Harbo 2002).
Also Kajberg observed that networking and mobility efforts in European LIS education have not yet produced
convincing results - active cooperation and networking efforts in European context must be initiated, and a
first step could be greater reliance on European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as a means for facilitating
comparison of LIS curricula across Europe and for promoting transparency in the LIS education field
(Kajberg 2003).
In the year 2000 a work group was appointed with the assignment of preparing a proposal for
initiatives and measures at Nordic level with a view of introducing internationally competitive postgraduate
research training programmes in the Nordic countries. The work group found that it would be of great value to
have such common objectives, some of the reasons being international recognition of Nordic research training
and recruitment of foreign students for Nordic research training (Nordic ... 2003).
During the years 1998-2002 Nordic Academy for Advanced Study (NorFA) supported a network for
doctoral training in LIS called NordIS-Net. It attracted doctoral students from all of the five Nordic and three
Baltic countries to participate in joint research courses and workshops. The research courses, organised once a
year, consisted of intensive lecture series on theoretical approaches and research methods in LIS; and the
workshops, organised also once a year, provided the students with an opportunity to get feed-back to their
papers by a broad range of Nordic-Baltic researchers. A particularly successful activity was the travel support
to research students for participating in research courses organised either by the network or outside it and for
taking part in international scientific conferences.
116
In 2003 NorFA started a five-year initiative (2004-2008) for graduate schools within humanities and
social sciences. The purpose of this initiative was to increase mobility in the region, to strengthen research
training and develop models to improve research training in each country and in the region as a whole. Five
graduate schools were chosen after external assessment, with Nordic and Baltic/ North-West Russian
participants, each with a framework funding of NOK 1 million per year for five years, one of them being
Nordic Research School in Library and Information Science (NORSLIS).
As the earlier network, also NORSLIS encompasses 15 institutions offering postgraduate research
training in LIS in the 8 Nordic and Baltic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania) and is open to participation for about 150 doctoral students.
The objective of NORSLIS is to increase the quality of doctoral education in library and information
science in order to meet the requirements of a knowledge society. The research school intends to achieve
synergistic effects, effectiveness and efficiency in doctoral education and research of LIS by collecting the
scattered scientific expertise, often in small-size research educational units, throughout the Nordic and Baltic
countries.
Each year NORSLIS offers 2 research courses, 1 workshop, 1 road show seminar, and selects 1
visiting professor. The novel component is the road show seminar attended by 2-3 researches and organised at
about 3 network sites offering lectures and possibilities for individual supervision and consultation. The main
activities of NORSLIS, which consist of promoting the mobility and the interaction of researchers, are also
supported by a web-based portal with a variety of information functions66.
The activities cover a broad range of topics and combine theoretical and methodological aspects. Two
5 ECTS research courses are developed and offered per academic year, some of which will be provided twice
during the five-year period. The idea is to enable two cohorts of students to benefit from those courses, taking
into account that doctoral students normally take courses in their first two years of their studies. NORSLIS
considers all credits as acceptable for local exams although the final decision is up to the local programs.
Workshops provide an opportunity for students to present a paper based on their research and to get
feedback from their peers and from senior researchers. One workshop is offered each year. Workshop credits
are in the range of 2-3 ECTS.
Doctoral research courses and workshops have proven to be beneficial means for sharing the Nordic
mentoring expertise and creating contacts between doctoral students and senior researchers. Hence, a primary
goal of the research course is to provide the doctoral students with a forum in which to present their research
projects and to discuss with senior researchers and fellow students the range of appropriate methodologies
available.
The novel concept of a 'road show seminar' is incorporated into the activities of the research school. It
means that a team of 2-3 senior researchers of high international status visits about three Nordic-Baltic sites,
each covering an adequate region, with a tailored set of lectures and tutorials on a pre-selected research area,
as well as supplying improved supervision and consultation. The idea is to provide, in cost-effective manner,
research knowledge and experience to the local research groups and doctoral students within the Nordic-Baltic
regions. Travel and accommodation costs are thus minimized. Also the visiting professors are expected to
participate in 'road show seminars'.
Visiting professors for a period of 3-4 weeks at 1-2 relevant locations, e.g., to promote research
frameworks and encourage local research groups.
Exchange of supervisor experience between the NORSLIS institutions is encouraged by the
availability of a number of travel grants. To be cost-effective the exchange is intended to take place in
connection with other NORSLIS events, such as research courses or workshops, in which the supervisor
already is engaged.
NORSLIS supports also doctoral students and post-docs mobility between their “home institution”
and a “guest institution” (primarily other institutions of the NORSLIS network). For PhD students the “home
institution” is where they are registered as PhD students. Post docs must be engaged in research and employed
by one of the 15 institutions participating in NORSLIS.
NORSLIS intends to support visits of doctoral students and post-docs in other Nordic-Baltic research
groups for 1-2 weeks. The aim is to help them to become acquainted with the work of eminent research teams
and to encourage research co-operation between the post-docs and young researchers.
In addition mobility support for PhD students may include:
• travel grants for research conferences for which the student has had a research paper accepted or a
research paper accepted for a doctoral forum connected with an international or Nordic conference;
66
Nordic Research School in Library and Information Science (NORSLIS). Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.norslis.net
117
• travel grants to attend other PhD courses in the Nordic countries;
• travel grants to attend other types of research courses, for example Nordic summer schools.
The guiding principle is that these grants are for high level research conferences or activities that make
considerable demands upon the PhD students.
Conclusion
Through cooperation and coordination it is possible to increase quality and effectiveness and make
the research education more efficient by collecting the scattered scientific expertise, often in small-size
research and educational units. By pooling the doctoral students in Nordic and Baltic countries it becomes
possible to gather groups large enough for providing them with relevant research courses tailored to their
needs. The advantage is also the possibility to organize informal thematic discussion (or research) groups and
workshops that may include doctoral and post-doctoral students as well as senior researchers.
References
Barriers to mobility in research training in the Nordic countries. (2003), Ed by A. Vabø. Oslo: Nordic Academy for
Advanced Study. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://www.nordforsk.org/_img/ACF106.pdf
Investing in research: An action plan for Europe. Communication from the Commission. COM(2003) 226 final/2.
Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2003/com2003_0226en02.pdf
Kajberg, L. (2003), Cross-country partnerships in international library and information science education. New
Library World, 104, 1189, 218-226.
Kehm, B. (2004), Reforming Doctoral Education in Europe. Presentation at the Conference “Co-operation on
Research Training in the Baltic Sea Area” organised by NorFA, May 10-11, 2004, Riga, Latvia.
Kõrghariduspoliitika strateegilised alused. Ettepanekud Vabariigi Valitsusele [Strategic bases of higher education
policy. Prepositions to the Government]. (2005), Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium.
Nordic research training: Common objectives for international quality. (2003), Ed by A. Aasland, M. Nilsen. Oslo:
Nordic Academy for Advanced Study. Retrieved February 25, 2005, from http://www.norfa.no/_img/ACF104.pdf
Position Paper on the Process towards Establishing a European Area of Higher Education Adopted by EUCLID.
(2003), Retrieved October 4, 2004, from http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/EUCLID.pdf
Presidency Conclusions of Barcelona European Council 15.-16.03.2002. DOC/02/8. Retrieved February 26, 2005,
from http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=DOC/02/8&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en
Quality in research training: Nordic co-operation on quality assessment of research training. (2004), Ed by P.
Larsen. Oslo: Nordic Academy for Advanced Study. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from
http://www.nordforsk.org/_img/Quality_in_research_2.pdf
Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for
Higher Education in Berlin on 19.09.2003. Retrieved February 26, 2005, from http://www.bolognaberlin2003.de/pdf/Communique1.pdf
The Research Foundations of Graduate Education. Germany, Britain, France, United States, Japan. (1993), Ed by
R. Clark. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Teadmistepõhine Eesti: Eesti teadus- ja arendustegevuse strateegia 2002-2006 [Knowledge-based Estonia: Estonian
Research and Development Strategy 2002-2006]. RT I 2001, 97, 606.
118
Virkus, S., Harbo, O. (2002), The internationalisation of Baltic Library and Information Science education with
emphasis on the cooperation with Nordic partners. Education for Information, 20, 217-235.
119
Exploitation of Academic Capital - Researchers and the “Spill over Effect”
Irena Kuzmanoska
Sagittarius ltd
Skopje, Macedonia
ikuzmanoska@sagittarius-ltd.org
Abstract
Macedonian science is more academic and less development oriented which seriously hinders country’s economy.
However, Macedonian major source of new knowledge - university research activities, must be seen as essential in
a knowledge intensive, globally competitive marketplace, and as such have a fundamental, long-term impact on the
overall productivity of the economy. Macedonia as a small country in a process of economic and democratic
transition must prove what is able to offer in terms of knowledge and skills in a globalised world. At present,
tertiary educated persons from the area of technical and natural sciences, as well as young teaching and research
staff from particular faculties constitutes the major share in the permanent emigration. Whether it results from push
or pull factors, the human capital flight commonly referred as “brain drain” as multifaceted phenomenon may have
devastating effects.
Resources - particularly the elite or so-called “cosmopolitans”, who carry ideas around in their heads, and
possess global networks of contacts – are becoming more mobile, shifting their place of residence more
frequently, and this applies no less in academic world than in the private sector.
(Goddard, 1999)
Macedonian science is more academic and less development oriented which seriously hinders
country’s economy. However, Macedonian major source of new knowledge - university research activities,
must be seen as essential in a knowledge intensive, globally competitive marketplace, and as such have a
fundamental, long-term impact on the overall productivity of the economy. This assumption relates
Macedonian higher education to the labour market, in compliance with the pace of change in national and
international economies that requires higher education to encourage development of people who can act
effectively in turbulent circumstances. Strengthening research capacity and competence at national level
primarily involves university sector. Most of the qualified researchers are at the universities, and the
universities are responsible for training researchers. The total number of R&D manpower has decreased
between 1999 and 2002 (see Figure 1). There are differences between the sectors e.g. the private sector shows
decrease from 1997 on and in the public sector this decrease is already visible from 2000 on. The higher
education shows gradual increase from 2000 to 2002. Figure 2 presents the same data, expressed according to
Full-time equivalent (FTE) and FTE per 1000 employees where decrease in the employment of full- time
equivalents in R&D from 1999 on is revealed as well as sharp decline in regards to FTE/1000 manpower from
2000. However, the intensified process of brain-drain and job restrictions has resulted in a trend of enduring
outflow of academics.
120
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1997
1998
Total
1999
Private
2000
Public
2001
2002
Higher education
Figure 1: R&D Manpower in relation to the employment sector
(Source: State Statistical Office (2003))
2,5
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
FTE/1000 manpower
Figure 2: Number of employed in R&D by Full-Time equivalent (FTE) and FTE per 1000 manpower
(Source: State Statistical Office (2003))
If we take a look at the real effort the Macedonian society has made for the higher education
(expenditure as a percentage of GDP) this picture is less positive. Gross domestic expenditure turned into
decline in 2002 (see Figure 3) and the growth in Gross government expenditure has levelled off (see Figure 4).
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Gross domestic expenditures on R&D/GDP
Figure 3: Gross domestic expenditures on R&D – ratio to GDP
(Source: State Statistical Office (2003))
121
0,19
0,18
0,17
0,16
0,15
0,14
0,13
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Gross government expenditures on R&D /GDP
Figure 4: Gross government expenditures on Research and Development – ratio to GDP
(Source: State Statistical Office (2003))
Ongoing discussions for what should constitute the national strategy for strengthening of research and
higher education and research-based knowledge in the Macedonian context reflected through the “major
source of new knowledge - university research activities, must be seen as essential in a knowledge intensive,
globally competitive marketplace, and as such have a fundamental, long-term impact on the overall
productivity of the economy” together with the strategies and constraints as challenges to achieve this goal are
summarized by Kuzmanoska (2002:1-2):



Strengthening research capacity and competence at national level primarily involves university
sector. Most of the qualified researchers are at the universities, and the universities are responsible for
training researchers.
Most of the researchers' expertise is acquired while they are conducting basic research, but apparently
these individuals have an impact on the productivity or further commercialization of applied R&D.
On the other hand the contribution of R&D to the improvement of practice had been somewhat
disappointing.
Emerging of clear picture where research in the discipline should be in ten to fifteen years time and
institute criteria – application/use/benefits and needs - for determining priorities.
Research is a key element for universities, both as part of their mission, and as an input and attitude
for teaching provision. However, “the “dynamic” impact of universities and their research work is absent in
most other industries, nevertheless universities generate and disseminate knowledge and technology which in
turn increase the productivity of factors of production, thereby increasing GDP” (Martin & Trudeau, 1999;
Kuzmanoska, 2002:3). Training of students for the world of science and research characterized with more or
less stabile situations should prepare students for roles and skills which still are not clearly articulated. In a
2002 ESF Policy Briefing, the notion of “T-shaped people” is introduced (in relation to needs of industry, but
it can be enlarged with the analysis to the needs of society): Industry seeks “T-shaped people,” in which the
down-stroke represents depth and specialist knowledge in a discipline and the cross-stroke represents breadth
and flexibility”.
In addition to the society and industry, the task of research and development is to assist policy
(forum) makers and practitioners in the emerging knowledge economy, at the same time as establishing a
continuing dialogue between all the stakeholders in order to shape the research agenda for priorities and
further policy implications and applications. This involvement of user community should be achieved through
joint efforts to clarify the roles of the various actors involved, better coordination and exchange of
information. Commercial notions like responsiveness to the market place, management, and efficient and
effective operation came to feature prominently in discussions between education policy and research policy.
This infusion of necessary corporate culture as compensation for the deficient research culture underlies the
emergence of strategic research and establishment of a new regime of “strategic science” (Rip, 2002).
Slaughter and Lesley (1997) describe the “academic capitalism” as captivator of the
commercialization of the research relationship since “fields close to the market gain power and influence
122
within the university” (Slaughter & Lesley 1997:218). Baumgartl (2004) draws attention on insufficient
support of the local “market” of the existence of all Higher Education institutions in their current role whereas
globalization becomes the main challenge for the Faculties. The academic capital is embodied in the academic
staff, and the search for funds has forced academics to sell their capital on the market. Academics are active in
advisory capacities and as researchers in government ministries and related bodies, industry and commerce
but this represents only an activity carried out by individuals and in same rare cases institutes, not of the
faculties and of the universities as a whole. The spillover effect of the academic research output has some
advantages for the private sector. In essence:
“Universities contain publicly subsidized academic researchers, so private costs are absorbed at the
public expense; (…) universities are better placed to take on the risks of intensely original research which
would otherwise impose costs on businesses if they had to anticipate the burden of failure. (…) initial research
can yield substantial wealth to successful entrepreneurs if things go well, but massive costs also if the research
fails to satisfy some trials” (Robertson, 1999:26).
From brain drain to brain gain
Macedonia as a small country in a process of economic and democratic transition must prove what is
able to offer in terms of knowledge and skills in a globalised world. As a primarily emigration country where
at present, tertiary educated persons from the area of technical and natural sciences, as well as young teaching
and research staff from particular faculties constitute the major share in the permanent emigration. The
emigration of tertiary educated persons falls in two categories: the emigration of academic staff that remained
abroad after the completion of their academic training or their research stay and, the emigration of graduate
students who had excellent grades and represented potential teaching and research assistants at the faculties
and research institutes. As Janeska (2003) argues: “The current emigration, as well as the realization of the
migration intentions of the young teaching and research staff and the best students from the technical and
natural sciences will without any doubt have far-reaching negative implications”. These implications will be
reflected in the decrease of the number of indispensable scientists that would be detrimental to the current
human resource policy for rejuvenating young academic staff in some faculties, especially in relation to the
fact that aging staff is the main challenge for the Faculty. In line with this the development of scientific
activities in particular areas and the development of country will be seriously affected by the permanent
emigration that reached very large proportions from the nineties from the last century on. The highly skilled
emigration labour represents “emigration of tertiary educated persons that is of longer-term or permanent
character, and is reaching significant levels and is not compensated by the feedback effects of remittances,
technology transfer, investments or trade” (Janeska ,2003).
An indicator of the premium to human capital is the migration of highly- skill researchers from their
home country Republic of Macedonia to location where their skills, and the benefits of their educational
investment, are more highly rewarded. The main economic rationale for moving is the higher wages and
greater employment one can receive for the same skills and knowledge in different locations. Migration as
such, is a form of human capital and is a powerful mean of raising income and promoting diffusion of
knowledge. From a global perspective it does not matter where the educated are contributing to production
and innovation; not only that they are being more productive than in their home country. In that sense
researchers-migrants contribute to increased world welfare including the country that they left. There are some
outcomes that are not so positive for the source country, especially to low income countries as Macedonia is at
the moment, in terms of the skills and knowledge of this highly skilled people are lost to the source country,
even if it is in a short term. In contrast, the creativity of highly- skill researchers might be used (given funding
resources) to conduct research on problems that are of primary concern to the industrial world rather than the
home country.
The World Bank in the report Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary
Education has envisaged the following measures for dealing with brain drain:
(a) clear rules of conduct among donor agencies in order to facilitate the return of professionals
trained overseas with external funding;
(b) increased reliance on joint degrees;
(c) inclusion in donor- funded scholarships of allocations for purchasing the minimum equipment and
materials needed by returning scholars and for travel to update knowledge;
(d) a preference for sending grantees to top-quality training institutions in other developing countries
that possess an oversupply of skilled labour;
123
(e) creation of a favorable local work environment for national researchers and specialists.
(Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, 2002:19)
In line with the fact that the growing brain drain as loss of advanced human capital has been closely
related to the political instability, Macedonia as a source country could help by adopting new policy, which
will include not only economic but also political considerations as well. Establishing innovative programs
designed for repatriation and keeping high- quality researchers, will facilitate, make possible and at the same
time smooth the progress of (large) variety high-quality research centres or new modules of graduate
programs at doctoral or post-doctoral level. Establishing of Centres of excellence is an effective strategy
against “brain drain” mainly because the primary focus would be on research of superior quality, which
further creates incentives for top researchers. It is expected that the new Law on Scientific Research and
Technological Development will provide for procedures for proclaiming centres of excellence on the basis of
established criteria.
In line with this, developing a human resource strategy -in the context of an overall organizational
strategy- which will facilitate other change processes, should take account of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commercial outputs;
Problem-solving skills;
Sustainable management;
Environmental scanning - attitudes oriented towards industry (international companies, SMEs);
Trainings;
Creating forms of supervision;
Contents - modularization;
Standards-quality assurance;
Rewards system.
References
Baumgartl, B., (2004) Observations, Recommendations and Suggestions in Cepujnoska et al., Quality Assurance in
Higher Education: From Analyses to Improvement, Skopje: Interuniversity Conference of Republic of Macedonia,
pp:44-78.
European Science Foundation Policy Briefing (17, July 2002) Agents for change. Bringing industry and academia
together to develop career opportunities for young researchers, report of a meeting sponsored by ESF with Science
Magazine Next Wave and the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm (Sweden), 24-25 March 2002, pp:4.
Goddard, J., (1999) Measuring the Economic Impact of Universities: Canada, in Gray, H., (Ed.) Universities and
Creation of Wealth. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Janeska, V., (2003) Migration of Highly Educated and Skilled Persons from the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje:
Institute for Economics, at Skopje’s University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”.
Kuzmanoska, I., (2002) Towards Strategy for Strengthening of Research and Higher Education and ResearchBased Knowledge in the Macedonian Context, paper presented at International Conference The Careers of the
Scientific Researchers in Europe, Brussels, Belgium, 15-16.12. 2002, pp 1-3.
Martin, F., Trudeau, M., (1999) Measuring the Economic Impact of Universities: Canada, in Gray, H., (Ed.)
Universities and Creation of Wealth. Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
Rip, A., (2002) Strategic Research, Post-modern Universities and Research Training, paper presented at the
International workshop on Science, Training and Career; Changing Modes of Knowledge Production and Labor
Markets, CHEPS, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 21-22 October.
Slaughter, S., Lesley, L., (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University,
Baltimore, MA, John Hopkins University Press, pp:218.
124
State Statistical Office (2003) Statistical Survey: Scientific Research and Development in the Republic of
Macedonia.
Robertson, D., (1999) Knowledge Societies in Gray, H., Universities and the Creation of Wealth, Buckingham:
SRHE/Open University Press, pp:26.
The World Bank (2002) Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, Washington
D.C.
125
Research and mobility in Hungary: Starting out and getting on
Marta Maczel
World Academy of Young Scientists
Budapest, Hungary
ways@waysnet.org, maczel@waysnet.org
Maria Harsanyi
World Academy of Young Scientists
Budapest, Hungary
ways@sztaki.hu
Peter Kerey
World Academy of Young Scientists
Budapest, Hungary
kerey@reak.bme.hu
Abstract
In today’s knowledge-based societies a clear trend can be observed: more and more students/researchers go abroad
in order to gain experience, to enhance their knowledge, to benefit from the most favorable working conditions
fostering productivity, and to get acquainted with other cultures. This way of intellectual enrichment, which is
particularly popular among young people, is a key element in the development of the European Research Area. In
fact, ERA is an important initiative to encourage collaboration, support mobility and bring European endeavors
together in the fields of science and technology. Hungary is one of the CEEC countries which entered the European
Union on 1 May 2004, but it is important to note that in the fields of education and research co-operation Hungary
had practically been considered equal to the EU countries already before this date. All the same, mobility patterns,
like in other CEEC countries, reflect considerable imbalances: much larger number of students/researchers profit
from mobility opportunities towards the EU than vice versa, and the brain drain effect is also perceptible. In this
paper, we explore the major motivating forces of students’/researchers’ mobility in and out of Hungary, and try to
provide useful information on the possibilities for foreigners.
Keywords: Research, mobility, Hungary, brain-drain, education
Introduction
In today’s knowledge-based societies a clear trend can be observed: more and more
students/researchers go abroad in order to gain experience, to enhance their knowledge, to benefit from the
most favorable working conditions fostering productivity, and to get acquainted with other cultures. This way
of intellectual enrichment, which is particularly popular among young people, is a key element in the
development of the European Research Area. In fact, ERA is an important initiative to encourage
collaboration, support mobility and bring European endeavors together in the fields of science and technology.
Hungary is one of the CEEC countries, which entered the European Union on 1 May 2004, but it is important
to note that in the fields of education and research co-operation Hungary had practically been considered
equal to the EU countries already before this date.
Hungarians abroad
Hungary has a well-developed system for taking care of young talents and helping them to start out
and get on with research. Talented young people can gain research experience and benefit from international
mobility already as secondary school students in the framework of an internationalized mentorship program
that was initiated by the Hungarian Research Student Movement (Network of Youth Excellence,
http://www.kutdiak.hu/en/). The mentorship experience, the short term stays abroad and conference/workshop
participations help the next generation of scientists to meet established scientists, which is an important
motivating factor at this age to get further involved in scientific research. Professor Peter Csermely, winner of
126
the EMBO Science Communication Award in 2003 and the EU Descartes prize in 2004, had a crucial role in
the success of this initiative.
The European Union Contest for Young Scientists is the meeting place of young investigators who
won the first prize at the national contests. Since 1995, Hungarians have won two 1st prizes, three 2nd prizes,
four 3rd prizes and 7 special prizes at the EU contests taking place in different European cities. Further
national competitions are annually organized for secondary school students in all subjects, and the first prize
winners can participate at International Olympiads and seminars (Harsányi, 2004).
At the university/college level, the range of opportunities broaden extensively due to the various
student mobility schemes, such as Tempus, Socrates/Erasmus, Leonardo, CEEPUS etc. Useful information on
grants is available at the Tempus Public Foundation (http://www.tka.hu/pages/en/index.php) and the
International Relations office of each university. In the framework of bilateral agreements, the Hungarian
Scholarship Board (www.scholarship.hu) offers short and long term grants to about 40 countries. Summer
university courses are available mostly for students studying foreign languages. Students specializing in
German language can also benefit from the support of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
As for Ph.D. students/early stage researchers, mobility highly depends on the international relations
of the supervisor and/or the institution, which are more and more extensive. Both short term and long-term
grants exist, and one can also benefit from a shared PhD training between two countries on the basis of
bilateral co-tutorship agreements (Hungarian Scholarship Board, www.scholarship.hu).
Although postdoctoral grants and fellowships are available on the international level
(http://www.kfki.hu/opportunities/), national grants also try to provide the best conditions for research in
Hungary (Bolyai/ Magyary/ Békésy grants) and abroad (Eötvös grant), and ease the return of Hungarian
fellows to their home institutions. Moreover, the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA,
http://www.otka.hu/index.html) provides the opportunity for young researchers (under 35 years of age, with
Ph.D.) to develop their own (even international) research projects. The Hungarian Academy of Sciences
contributes to the career development of young scientists by supporting their conference participation in the
form of travel grants (Harsányi, 2004).
Concerning the data on Hungarians participating in mobility, we can say that at the secondary school
level only a very limited number of ‘student researchers’ have the possibility to go abroad, meaning the most
talented 1-3 persons per competition. Unfortunately, there is no all-inclusive data on the number of Hungarian
university and Ph.D. students and fellows participating in mobility schemes. Taking as an example, data from
the Hungarian Scholarship Board (www.scholarship.hu) show that based on bilateral agreements, annually
around 900 students spent a total of 2,500-3,000 months abroad in the last few years. In general, we can say
that Western Europe (especially Germany and France) and Scandinavia are the preferentially chosen places to
study or to conduct research (more than 2,000 months annually), while Eastern European countries are rather
neglected (less than 150 months/year). 82% of students go to Western-European countries and only 11%
moves to CEEC, while 7% is interested in going outside of Europe. Data of the National Office for Research
and Technology in Hungary show that till 2004 altogether 27 persons had a Marie Curie Intra-European
Fellowship grant for gaining research experience abroad.
Foreigners in Hungary
International mobility is growing at a fairly rapid pace in all European nations. For foreigners, the
major attracting forces of the Hungarian higher education and academic life are world famous scientific
schools, achievements and scientists, many of them Nobel laureates (e.g. Albert Szent-Györgyi – Vitamin C;
Dennis Gábor – holography). Regarding the number of foreign students in Hungary, an almost 50% growth
could be noticed between the academic years 1995/1996 (6300 full-time students) and 2003/2004 (9371 fulltime students) (Statistical Yearbook of Education, 2004).
Currently, almost 13,000 foreign university/college students per year attend the full (undergraduate
or postgraduate) education programme in Hungary, usually in the framework of exchange programmes
(http://www.tpf.iif.hu/pages/en/index.php) supported by the Hungarian government (especially in the case of
Hungarian minorities) or on their own costs (still cheaper than in their home countries). It means that at the
present around 3-4% of the student community consists of foreigners, and since 2000 an annual 5% growth
could be observed in their numbers on average (Table 1).
It is astonishing to see however that unlike in the case of Hungarian minorities (approximately 3,000
university students compared to about 350-400 doctoral students), the number of Western Europeans and
Scandinavian students highly diminishes at the doctoral level (approximately 2,000 university students
compared to about 50 doctoral students). Concerning the postdoctoral level, there is no collective data, since
127
mobility at this stage is generally included in the framework of international research projects (Statistical
Yearbook of Higher Education, 2003).
Table 1. Students/researchers at the university level in Hungary between 2000-2004
(Statistical Yearbook of Education, 2004)
Total number
Foreign students
Annual growth
2000/2001
327 289
11 242 (3,4%)
5%
2001/2002
349 301
11 783 (3,4%)
4%
2002/2003
381 560
12 226 (3,2%)
6%
2003/2004
409 075
12 913 (3,2%)
Table 2. Full-time foreign students/researchers by level of education and origin in 2002
(Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education, 2003)
Geographical distribution
Full-time PhD/DLA
University
Full-time
PhD/DLA
University
students
students
foreign
level
(total)
students
Europe
*Romania, Slovakia,
Ukraine, Yugoslavia
*Other
9997
4822 (48%)
82%
82%
75%
*7787
404 (4,0%)
*359
(4,6%)
*3049 (39%)
*64%
*73%
*47%
*2210
*45 (2,0%)
*1773 (80%)
*18%
*9%
*27%
Africa
191
34 (17,8%)
118 (62%)
2%
7%
2%
North-America
282
7 (2,5%)
254 (90%)
2%
1%
4%
South-America
17
1 (5,9%)
8 (47%)
0%
0%
0%
Asia
1735
44 (2,5%)
1266 (73%)
14%
9%
20%
Total
12226
491 (4,0%)
6470 (53%)
100%
100%
100%
It also has to be noted that approximately two third of the foreign students/researchers come from
areas previously belonging to Hungary (i.e. Hungarian minorities from Romania, Slovakia, Yugoslavia,
Ukraine etc.) and most of them fluently speak Hungarian. The majority of the remaining third comes from
Western European countries and Asia (especially Iran and Vietnam) (Table 2). The highest number of
students come from Norway, Germany, Greece and Sweden, where the available places for high-level medical
training is limited (Statistical Yearbook of Education, 2003). The approval of the Hungarian diploma in these
countries is a clear indication of the Hungarian intellectual potential, also reflecting that Hungary is an
important partner in the overall European education scene.
Table 3. Foreign students in Hungary by country of origin in 2002
(Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education, 2003)
Foreign students in 2002
by country of origin
Foreign PhD/DLA students
by country of origin
Foreign university students
by country of origin
Israel
Norway
Germany
Cyprus
Russia
Iran
Libya
Israel
Egypt
Russia
Germany
Iran
Israel
Norway
Germany
Greece
USA
Cyprus
664
642
519
297
229
209
20
14
12
10
5
5
631
616
452
191
191
169
Not surprisingly, there tends to be a close association between the different levels of education and
the origin of students. While Western European citizens constitute 27 % of all university students coming to
Hungary, at the PhD/DLA level they are present in only 9%, which is similar to the representation of the
African and South-American countries (Table 2). Overall, the top sending countries are Israel and Norway,
closely followed by Germany. As for the university and PhD/DLA levels, Israel ranks first at the university
128
level, and second at the doctoral level. Regarding doctoral training, candidates coming from less developed
countries: Libya, Egypt and Russia outnumber the EU citizens in Hungary (Table 3).
Regarding the distribution of foreign students according to the various disciplines, it has to be noted
that the most attractive fields are medical and veterinary sciences (48% of all foreign students), followed by
social sciences (32%), engineering (9%) and natural sciences (6%). As a consequence, the Semmeilweis
University in Budapest attracts the highest number of students, but other medical faculties (Debrecen, Szeged,
Pécs; Figure 1) also rank high positions. As the largest universities of Hungary, the Eötvös Loránd University
and the University of Debrecen rank second and third regarding the number of foreign students (Statistical
Yearbook of Higher Education, 2003).
Figure 1. University centers in Hungary
Concerning everyday “survival”, it has to be noted that living conditions in Hungary are close to
European standards. Prices are lower than those in the West, and likewise higher than those in the East.
Administration and service in public offices is rather bureaucratic – like anywhere else in the world. However,
many Hungarians, especially the young, speak foreign languages, and they are eager to help foreigners. To
overcome the “fear of the unknown”, the best thing one can do is gathering information (Table 4).
Table 4. Useful information on Hungary
Useful information for foreigners coming to Hungary:
http://www.tpf.iif.hu/pages/subpage/index.php?id=318&page_id=2&lang_type=en
(Users’ Guide to Hungary)
http://www.budapestudent.org (Budapest Foreign Student Network)
http://www.studyhungary.hu (International University Programs)
General information about Hungary:
http://www.magyarorszag.hu/angol/orszaginfo/alapadatok
http://www.hungarytourism.hu/index.php?langid=En
Controlling forces and obstacles
What are the main controlling forces of mobility in Hungary? One of the key factors may be the “fear
of the unknown”. In the last few years, considerable changes happened in the fields of education and research,
and the current situation is not very well-known. Hungary has passed a transitional period of high-degree
separation, which is coming to an end by the reintegration of the previously atomized institutional system.
Many speak of the language barrier and only few recognize that one may survive in Hungary even without
129
speaking a word in Hungarian: a variety of courses and programmes exist in foreign languages (Table 5), and
research team members generally have a good command of English.
Table 5. English-language information on the available courses and programmes
Budapest
Eötvös Loránd University - http://www.elte.hu/en/index.html
Semmeilweis University - http://www.sote.hu/english/ (Medical sciences)
Budapest University of Technology and Economics - http://www.bme/en/index.html,
www.tanok.bme.hu (Engineering sciences)
Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration http://www.bkae.hu/index_angol.php?org=2&LNG=eng, http://www.isc.bke.hu (Economics),
http://www.kee.hu/english.html (Horticulture, food science, landscape)
KFKI Atomic Energy Research - http://www.kfki.hu/(en)/ (Physics)
Budapest Collegium - http://www.colbud.hu (Institute for advanced study)
Central European University - http://www.ceu.hu/indexnsie.html (interdisciplinary studies)
Andrassy Gyula University - http://www.andrassyuni.hu/ (German-language university)
Debrecen - University of Debrecen
http://dragon.unideb.hu/eng.htm
http://www.ud-mhsc.org/General/Courses/Education_Programs.html (Medical sciences)
http://www.date.hu/e_frame.html (Agriculture)
http://delfin.klte.hu/~de-konz/index.html (Music)
http://www.atomki.hu/index_en.html (Nuclear research)
http://www.econ.unideb.hu/eng/index_frame.html (Economics)
Gödöll_ – Szent István University
www.sziu.hu
http://www.univet.hu/english/ (Veterinary science)
Szeged - University of Szeged
http://www.u-szeged.hu/indexe.html
http://www.szote.u-szeged.hu/aok/maine.htm Medical sciences)
http://www.szote.u-szeged.hu/angoltit/ (Medical sciences)
http://www.music.u-szeged.hu/indexa.htm (Music)
Pécs – University of Pécs
http://www.ki.pte.hu/eng/
http://www.isc.pte.hu
http://www.baba.ktk.pte.hu
Gy_r – University of Western Hungary
http://www.sze.hu/siceng/
Veszprém – University of Veszprém
http://www.vein.hu/npo/eng/index.html
http://vein.hu/~kovacsz
Furthermore, the expansion of liberality, the introduction of credit system, and the development of the
three-level higher education system due to the Bologna Process contribute to the fact that Hungary is an equal
partner in higher education programmes of the European Union. All the same, Hungarian
universities/institutions often meet problems like not having enough exchange students or lacking part-time
finance for outgoing mobility.
Although difficulties (mostly financial and infrastructural in nature) still exist to provide the
necessary conditions for effective research, Hungary’s equal and active participation in the Framework
Programme No. 5 and 6, the acknowledgement of EU Centers of Excellence (e.g.
130
http://www.colbud.hu/main.shtml, http://www.osski.hu/homeeng.htm, http://www.atomki.hu/index_en.html,
http://www.szbk.u-szeged.hu/) and the rising number of international research projects show the increasing
Hungarian research potential.
In Hungary, mainly the younger generation (20-40 year old scientists) participate in mobility, since
their career perspectives may largely be influenced by their international research experience. Opportunities
vary according to disciplines; mobility is the highest in the fields of humanities, engineering and natural
sciences. Transatlantic mobility is remarkably high to the United States and Far Eastern countries, like Japan
and South-Korea. Even though there are some less utilized mobility schemes (like the Marie Curie Actions),
the degree of outgoing mobility seems to be fairly reasonable.
The main obstacles in international mobility are the lack of information and a clearly defined
application procedure for EU projects. It has to be noted that although the capacity and quality of human
resources in R&D is on quite a high level, research management and entrepreneurial skills should
considerably be developed. The increasing number of early stage researchers participating in mobility is
generally explained by the fact that they are not retained by family problems and speak more languages than
many senior researchers. Recently the Hungarian Accreditation Committee carried out a survey on doctoral
schools. The results showed that although all PhD candidates are required to take intermediate or advanced
level language exams, only some of them are capable to give foreign language presentations at conferences or
participate in scientific debates. In fact, 6-10% of all PhD students have a good command of foreign
languages, corresponding to those who participated in mobility during their training period (Róna-Tas, 2003).
The survey also revealed that 35-40 percent of PhD candidates would not mind working at a foreign university
or research institute (Fabri, 2003). Career perspectives of Hungarian early stage researchers can largely be
enhanced by their participation in mobility schemes. Therefore, it is essential to distribute information,
optimize knowledge by focusing on specific themes, and involve all parts of Hungary in mobility.
Mobility costs are mainly financed by research institutes and grants (national, bilateral and EU), but
early stage researchers can mostly profit from grants. It has to be noted that one part of the mobility is realized
in the framework of various research projects. According to international data, the outgoing mobility of early
stage researchers in Hungary is higher than in Western European countries or in the US, which can be
explained by the infrastructural and financial conditions as important factors in the attraction of the most
talented and motivated researchers (Viszt, 2004). Since young people are highly mobile, they might easily
take advantage of the opportunities offered by foreign institutions where the lack of researchers, especially in
engineering and natural sciences, can be balanced only through the brain-drain process. The ability to profit
from international mobility at the national level, which has become an important driving force of the
knowledge-based economies’ development, goes beyond the motivation of researchers to gain experience
abroad. In fact it would be important to increase the ability of Hungary to attract and retain talented young
researchers.
In view of the bad age distribution patterns of the present researcher community and the considerable
number of young scientists leaving for abroad, the Hungarian Government decided to elaborate and support
return schemes. The elements of the new policy include the applicability of foreign research experience in
Hungarian context, and better infrastructural and financial conditions. The pulling forces to return to Hungary
can be attractive career perspectives, stable researcher status, and cultural and familial roots. Research
experience can be gained through the expatriate researchers by transferring their knowledge to Hungary and
using the human capital of their network. The initiative of Project Retour (www.projectretour.org.hu), recently
launched in Hungary helps the return and reintegration of highly qualified expatriate researchers by
distributing information and fostering communication between employers and returnees.
Conclusions
Although the intellectual potential of Hungary is generally well-recognized, the limited research
potential - primarily due to infrastructural and financial problems – makes mobility patterns imbalanced above
the university/college level. The direction of mobility is mainly towards the West, where these problems are
not perceptible and scientific productivity can be more easily assured. In fact, a considerably larger number of
PhD students/early stage researchers profit from mobility opportunities to the well-developed countries than
vice versa. However, the same westward movement is also detectable within the CEEC countries, where
Hungary constitutes one of the important destinations. It is clearly visible that investments in Hungary, like in
other CEEC countries, as well as the extension of mobility opportunities (e.g. by the creation of further grants)
would possibly alter the current patterns, and the “brain drain” effect would be replaced by real “brain
circulation”. It is important to enhance both incoming and outgoing mobility and international cooperation to
develop the R&D human resources in Hungary.
131
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the following institutions for providing data on mobility in and out of Hungary:
Ministry of Education, Hungary
Tempus Foundation
Hungarian Scholarship Board
National Office for Research and Technology, Hungary
References
Statistical Yearbook of Education 2003/2004, Ministry of Education, Budapest 2004
Statistical Yearbook of Higher Education 2002/2003, Ministry of Education, Budapest 2003
Harsanyi M. (2004), Fiatal tudósok hazai hálózata, Nemzeti kutatási és Technológiai Hivatal, Budapest
Róna-Tas A. (2003), A magyar doktori iskolák helyzete és jöv_je, Magyar Akkreditációs Bizottság, Budapest
Viszt E. (2004), A kutatók nemzetközi mobilitása, Magyar Tudomány, 2004/8. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from
http://www.matud.iif.hu/04aug/11.html
Fabri I. (2003), Kutatási jelentés a PhD fokozatot szerzettek munkaer_piaci esélyeit feltáró kutatási programról,
Acta Doctorandum, 2003/1 Retrieved June 7, 2003 from http://www.phd.hu/acta/2003_1/17-22.pdf
132
A novel hiring programme for scientists in Spain: The Ramón y Cajal
programme
Juan de la Figuera
Departamento de Física de la Materia Condensada, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid,
28049 Madrid, Spain
Abstract
We present the main characteristics of the new hiring programme “Ramón y Cajal” launched by the Spanish
government in 2001. Announced as the beginning of a “tenure-track” system, we will discuss how successful the
programme has been to achieve its declared goals. We also expose the main drawbacks that the programme has
faced during the first three years of activity.
Keywords: tenure-track, science policy, in-breeding.
Introduction
Spain has traditionally lacked a tenure track system. The Spanish system of Science and Technology
in public institutions (mostly research laboratories and Universities) is based on civil servant researchers and
professors, plus short-term contracts (or grants) for PhD students and postdoctoral scientists. The method of
selecting new civil servants is cumbersome and it is often dominated by considerations other than the
scientific merit of the candidates. Although we lack extensive studies, smaller scale reports indicate that
inbreeding, defined as the percentage of professors that have a permanent position in the same department
(and usually same group) where they got their PhD, is extremely prevalent67, reaching values of more than
95% of the staff. These hiring practices, in a system closed to outsiders, is suspected to impact negatively on
the level of the research68.
The research level in Spain is reasonable69, especially if we compare the current situation with the
recent past. Now Spain is part of the European Union and Spanish scientists are known in many fields,
although the spending level still lags behind other member states70. Nevertheless, the level of Spanish
institutions is not outstanding. The currently available comparisons between Universities, such as the ranking
from the Shanghai Jiao Tong University71 or The Times Higher Education72 ranking does not show by far any
Spanish University in the top tier. In words of The Times:
But perhaps the most striking feature of the European top 50 is the invisibility of southern Europe. Spain,
Portugal, Italy and Greece are all absent. They begin to appear only at positions 67 and 68, beyond the
number we are able to publish here, when Madrid and Rome's La Sapienza universities respectively put in an
appearance. This is ominous for these countries' prospects in the continent-wide knowledge economy of which
European and national planners dream.
67
68
Soler M.(2001) High rate of inbreeding in Spanish universities, Nature 411,132
Buela-Casal, Gualberto (2005). Situación actual de la productividad científica de las universidades españolas, Int. J. Clinical and Health
Psych. 5,175-190
69
King,David A (2004). The scientific impact of nations, Nature 430 311-316.
70
Eur. Comm. (2003). 3rd European Report on Science and Tech Indicators.
71
72
2004 Academic Ranking of World Universities, http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm.
Ince, M. et al, (2004). World University Rankings, The Times Higher Education Supplement,
133
To address these points and promote the incorporation of researchers (Spanish and foreign), the
“Ramón y Cajal” programme73 (named after the only Spaniard that ever received the Nobel prize for his
research in Spain) was launched in 2001 by the Spanish government. Its declared goal was the creation of the
“beginning” of a tenure track system with up to 2000 five-year research contracts (to be distributed between
2001 and 2003) and to “incorporate” those scientists into the Spanish science system.
Discussion
The “Ramón y Cajal” (RyC) programme consists of five-year contracts awarded after a competitive
selection of candidates. The institutions that receive the candidates co-finance the salaries in increasing
amounts with the main part being covered by the government. The salaries are in the same range as those of
young civil-servant professors in Spain (around 30 k€ per year before taxes). The institutions included in the
programme range from public and private Universities to Hospitals and national research laboratories. There
is also a small amount of “installation” money (6-12 k€). The RyC researcher can choose to lead a new
research group or enter an established one. He or she has the option of being principal investigator of national
or international research projects or depending on the region, of regional projects. The researchers are
evaluated after their second year and after their fourth year.
The future after the five-year contract is not defined. Despite much talk of “efforts” to incorporate the
researchers, and the underlying agreement that a successful researcher should be given the opportunity to
being hired permanently, there is no binding obligation. We can only assume that the reason behind it was that
the Spanish government thought that otherwise the institutions would not participate in the programme.
The selection of the final candidates was done by the same Spanish agency that evaluates and funds
research programs (Agencia Nacional de Evaluación y Prospectiva, ANEP), with annual calls for proposals.
The researchers are evaluated without considering their proposed institution, so only personal achievements
are supposed to count. The level of the selection was high, especially in the first calls and in areas like the life
and physical sciences, which also concentrate most of the offers. Initially (2001) the institutions had to
provide an acceptance letter for the candidates beforehand, but this requirement was dropped in later calls
(2002, 2003).
Among the clear successes of the program is the fulfilment of the promised positions. The evaluation
system also has selected better candidates than the traditional methods used in Spain74. Up to 16%75 of the
researchers are not Spanish citizens, a figure completely unheard of in any other part of the Spanish science
system. In some institutions, the RyC researchers are a significant fraction of the total staff (up to 30%), but in
most Universities their relative numbers are small, with an average of 4% of the institution. The average age
was around 38 years for researchers hired under the first call (2001), lending some irony to the term “young
scientists” usually employed to address them.
Limitations that soon became apparent were the lack of real start-up money as well as the unusual
status of the researchers in the Spanish system. New research lines imply major initial expenses in the
experimental sciences which cannot be obtained without start-up funds or until a grant is obtained. As a
predictable consequence, most researchers have not been able to start independent or new research lines. This,
and the original lack of more junior postdoctoral fellowships (this has been solved in recent calls) blurred the
line between a scientist working as a postdoctoral researcher in the Anglo-Saxon sense (a postdoc) and a
researcher leading his own group. Finally Universities and research centres in general76 (there are exceptions)
have been reluctant to consider the researchers as fully fledged members of their institutions, something which
has not been helped by the extended feeling that the RyC researchers are “outsiders”, not selected directly by
the receiving institution. Actually, most (over 60%) of the researchers already had other contracts within the
receiving institutions, so this argument (even if one would accept the rationale behind it) is quite weak.
Finally, now that the researchers hired at the beginning of the program have entered the final two
years of their contracts, the uncertainty of their future is looming larger. Also, the limitations of the original
programme are more apparent: most institutions have not agreed to any future offer and many of them instead
argue that the future should be solved by the central government. Although the original programme required
an estimate of the expected staff growth at the receiving institution before the government would admit an
73
74
75
76
Ramón y Cajal Programme web page, http://wwwn.mec.es/ciencia/jsp/plantilla.jsp?area=cajal&id=30
Rivero A., y Navarro A., (2004) Endogamia en la universidad, lecciones del programa Ramón y Cajal. Apuntes de Ciencia y Tecnología 4, 33.
Spanish Ministry of Science and Tech (2004) Press release.
Source: National Association of Ramón y Cajal Researchers (2004), http://Ramónycajal.dhs.org
134
offer from that institution, this requirement was not taken seriously. Furthermore, to complicate matters, the
Spanish science system is very diverse:
• Public Universities, the biggest single type of institution that hired RyC scientists, are highly
independent entities in Spain. The governing bodies of the universities are elected by the professors,
administrative workers and students. Funding is provided by regional governments with a strong
emphasis on teaching and the total number of students as an important indicator. Many Universities
complain that they lack the financial resources to offer permanent positions to the researchers hired
under the RyC programme, a complaint with some merit but that shows that Universities consider
other needs, such as internal promotion, as more important than hiring independently chosen
researchers.
• Hospitals present an even more complex problem, depending on Health departments of the
corresponding regional governments. There are efforts underway to implement a researcher position
in a world where only medical doctors have been traditionally considered as potential independent
researchers.
• Only the national laboratory system of the High Council of Scientific Research (CSIC, similar to the
French CNRS) depends directly on the same central government that drives this programme. Even in
this case and with offers of permanent positions of numbers roughly compatible with the hiring of
RyC researchers (so far there have been 200 offerings for all types of junior scientists in the period
2002-2004 to be compared to around 500 RyC researchers), the internal politics between different
research institutes result in distributions by knowledge areas that do not reflect the number of
contracts offered under the programme. Some biology institutes in particular have been offering
permanent positions at numbers orders of magnitude lower than the numbers of their filled RyC
contracts, implying that they consider the programme a good source of expendable workforce to be
rotated every few years. Some of these have even advertised the RyC contracts as “tenure-track” in
international journals despite their lack of tenure offers.
This short overview does not cover other centres, such as private Universities and public research
centres outside the CSIC system. At least, other administrative obstacles to hiring non-Spanish citizens or
Spanish citizens with foreign degrees are being addressed by the government, hopefully putting an end to
almost surreal experiences77
The RyC programme has continued after 2003, with a planned call for 2005. The number of contracts
has been reduced, with around 200 positions offered. The terms are still basically the same: a five-year
contract with some installation money. It should be noted that there is no option to reapply to the programme
once the contract has expired.
Summary
The Ramón y Cajal programme has been used to increase the number of high-level scientists working
in the Spanish science system. Providing a five-year contract through an open competition, it has been
successful in attracting many young (and some not so young) researchers. However, the lack of commitment
of the receiving institutions means that the long-term success of the programme is still in doubt. The actual
Spanish government is proposing to implement yet another programme to convince the institutions to offer
permanent positions, not only, but mostly directed to RyC researchers.
A clear lesson to be learnt from the Ramón y Cajal programme is that any system which aspires to be a
“tenure-track” should define clearly and without ambiguity what steps are required from the applicant for
obtain (or fail to obtain) tenure. Otherwise there is a strong tendency to redefine the rules along the way, and
in institutions with strong government ties, to wait for the government to bail them out of their
responsibilities.
77
van Raaij, Mark (2004). New law does little to ease research pain in Spain, Nature 428, 365.
135
Junior Faculty at Karolinska Institutet
Marie Wahren Herlenius
Dept. of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden
marie.wahren@cmm.ki.se
Anna Persson, Judit Wefer
Junior Faculty, Dept of Research and Postgraduate Education, Karolinska Institutet
Stockholm, Sweden
anna.persson@admin.ki.se, judit.wefer@admin.ki.se
Abstract
The world of research is in a constant state of change, and scientists need to be more versatile today than only 10
years ago – the need to write “selling” applications, make brilliant presentations and build powerful networks in
order to become successful has increased.Few positions are available, and with an increasing part of funding
coming from non-university based sources, the situation for junior researchers becomes more demanding. Hence, it
is vital to all research institutions to help and encourage excellent junior scientists to stay in research but also to
facilitate transition for those who do not wish to stay. Karolinska Institutet, the largest medical university of
Sweden, has launched a formalised programme that benefits junior researchers in their career development. The
programme, aimed at providing a platform and tools for successful career development, has since the start in 2002
developed successfully to embrace a majority of the junior scientist at the university. The wide range of activities
offered by Junior Faculty includes career counselling, networking, mentoring and courses as well as funded
opportunities for international scientific interactions and the programme has proven to be a successful tool both in
offering concrete measures to improve the competence base of scientific and leadership skills, in addition to
influencing decision-makers.
Introduction
The world of research is in a constant state of change, and scientists need to be more versatile today
than only 10 years ago – the need to write “selling” applications, make brilliant presentations and build
powerful networks in order to become successful has increased. Few positions are available, and with an
increasing part of funding coming from non-university based sources, the situation for junior researchers
becomes more demanding. Hence, it is vital to all research institutions to help and encourage excellent junior
scientists to stay in research but also to facilitate transition for those who do not wish to stay. Karolinska
Institutet, the largest medical university in Sweden, has launched a formalised programme that benefits junior
researchers in their career development. The programme, aimed at providing a platform and tools for
successful career development, has since the start in 2002 developed successfully to embrace a majority of the
junior scientist at the university. The wide range of activities offered by Junior Faculty includes career
counselling, networking, mentoring and courses as well as funded opportunities for international scientific
interactions. The programme has proven to be a successful tool both in offering concrete measures to improve
the competence base of scientific and leadership skills, in addition to influencing decision-makers
Junior researchers
Among the young researchers of today we will find the scientific leaders of tomorrow. How can a
university best help these talented individuals, and provide them with the training and tools they need to fully
develop their potential?
-
The problems that junior researchers encounter include:
the research world is in a constant state of change with high demands on a broad competence base
few positions are available
136
-
with an increasing number of scientifically trained persons, the competition for funding is higher
junior scientists have little education for and experience in leadership
junior researchers do not know whom to contact for advice
In ten years, the number of PhD students within the medical field has increased with 65% in Sweden.
Many of these young scientists wish to continue with a postdoctoral research period at another university in
their country or abroad. Some will, for various reasons, leave the Academia and look for a job outside the
academic world. There is a wide range of options, and after spending many years at a university it is difficult
to assess the options and know whether to continue the academic path, join a biotech or pharmaceutical
company, work for local municipality or other public organisations or authorities.
Those who stay on or go abroad as postdocs are often left with a sense of exposure, and as they are no
longer students, but not independent researchers either, postdocs are still in the need of guidance. The purpose
with the postdoctoral period is to give junior researchers the confidence needed to move on as independent
researchers and to build the foundation for a research career either within the Academia or outside. In order to
achieve this, a structure must be offered to them. Providing a framework and a sense of belonging facilitates
the postdoctoral period to become maximally successful. In addition, it is common to visit a new university
for the postdoctoral studies, thus the mobility within this group is high. A postdoc seldom stays more than
three years before moving on to a new position and it is important that the time spent is as rewarding and
productive as possible. The need of feeling akin to somebody is important, not only to strengthen individuals
but also to strengthen the group as such to become able to influence decision makers to address their concerns,
and likewise for the decision-makers to reach out to the group.
78
The metamorphos
The transition from being a postdoc to becoming a junior scientist is one of the toughest
metamorphoses a scientist makes. After a postdoctoral period many researchers find themselves on their own
to build a productive and working research group, while at the same time having to establish themselves as
independent scientists. A contact with a senior mentor and access to suitable networks can make a great
difference in this period of life.
While establishing an independent line of research and starting a group, it is extremely important to
broaden ones competence base. In order to handle the responsibilities of the group, knowledge is needed on
maintenance obligations, group dynamics, finance and administration. With their main focus on research,
junior researchers seldom have time enough to spend on these issues, which makes the step even more
difficult.
Suddenly people find themselves asking if they will ever have a chance to combine a research career
with a family life and how to make this alongside a prosperous research career. Many questions that might
never have arisen before become primary and support is vital to figure it all out.
Outside the Ivory tower
Many of those who receive a PhD contemplate other career paths than the academic. To take this step
is not always easy, as there are big differences in the working cultures. For example, an application for a job
in the industry does not resemble an application to a position within Academia. Most people have spent 1/3 of
their lives within the Academia and it could be a shock to realise that they do not have any experience of other
areas of work or how to find opportunities outside the “Ivory tower”.
Junior Faculty
At several universities in Europe, there are career centers for undergraduate and graduate students,
but for obvious reasons this only address concerns relevant to those who have not yet reached so far in the
academic career. In the USA, however, it is common that universities and research institutes also focus on
support to junior researchers with a PhD in their career development.
78
Swedish Universities and University Colleges, National Agency for Higher Education, Annual report 2004
137
Most European universities already offer a diverse number of support mechanisms for researchers at
various levels in the form of, for example, courses and special training. There is, however, usually no
coordinated or official career development programme along the lines of junior researchers.
Karolinska Institutet, Sweden´s largest Medical University, located in the capital Stockholm, has as
the first university in Sweden, developed a unique concept. To ease the transition to become an independent
researcher, the Junior Faculty, a career development programme was initiated in 2002. The idea awoke as a
result of several activities, reports and events such as the international conference “Woman in the Life
Sciences – Tools for Successful Research Careers”79. The idea was to create a forum for junior researchers
where their matters of interest were addressed, to give special attention to the career development of the group
and to support the group. Junior researchers were involved in the process from the beginning to ensure and
guard the participation and interests of the target group.
The Junior Faculty target group is junior researchers who hold a PhD but not yet a tenure position,
including postdocs. The objective of the Junior Faculty programme at Karolinska Institutet is to develop and
create a number of activities and measures to support the group by:
-
identifying all junior researchers and make them visible as individuals and as a group
presenting career options and how to reach them
supporting researchers in different positions by offering the competence development needed
By gathering all matters concerning junior scientists beneath one flag, the Junior Faculty programme
has become an efficient way of strengthening the group as such as well as the support given to the group. To
create a powerful organisation allows the best possible conditions for success in giving service and mediate a
positive attitude toward research and the institute.
Feeling akin to others in the same situation is important. This concerns special attention to the
interests of various subgroups within the target group such as postdocs, clinicians and preclinicians, Swedish
as well as foreign researchers. Mostly the interests of these groups co-insides, but sometimes their various
needs demands special attention. Junior Faculty plays for example an important role to make foreign
researchers feel at home and to ease to adaptation to life in a new country.
Junior researchers on various positions need diverse forms of competence development depending on
their specific needs. The Junior Faculty programme assists with all complementary tools needed to be able to
build a wide competence base in order to become a successful researcher.
Implementing the programme
From the start in 2002 the Junior Faulty has developed a number of activities, all as a mean to raise
the awareness of career options and future working conditions. In 2005 the Junior Faculty has grown to
embrace the major part of all junior scientists active within the university. A large part of these researchers
participate in activities arranged by the Junior Faculty such as career consultation, mentoring activities,
networking, travel grants, courses, workshops and social gatherings.
Career Consultation
An important task is to make the researchers aware of all their options both within the Academia as
well as outside in order to optimise their conditions to succeed. For the decision on how to proceed in their
careers, Junior Faculty offers junior researchers career consultation, both as individual discussions and as
group activities. This is a way to give support in finding out inner driving forces, expectations and evaluate
available options within the Academia and outside and how to reach them. Part of the consultation deals with
tactical and strategic choices and to see what is needed to reach their goals as well as exercises in CV writing,
interview techniques etc.
Mentoring programmes
Mentoring by senior faculty is another efficient tool to give attention to career paths, which is why
Junior Faculty develops ways to make mentoring a part of the university organization.
79
Women in the Life Sciences – Tools for Successful Research Career, conference at Karolinska Institutet,
December 3-4, 2001, www.ki.se/wistool
138
As a complement to career consultation, mentoring provides an excellent opportunity to achieve a
more detached viewpoint on visions, thoughts and problems from an older and more experienced colleague.
Knowledge is being transferred about the organisation, administration and decision-making processes through
access to underlying codes and culture as well as leadership skills. The dialogue with a senior colleague
provides a type of neutral zone in which protégés and young researchers can converse with the mentor in a
less inhibited way than with one’s closest colleagues and managers. The mentor can play the role of a guide or
a sounding board. The mentor, in turn, gain new unembellished impressions both in the dialogue between
mentor and protégé and through networks of mentors from various disciplines.
Mentoring is also an efficient mean to create a favourable climate for development and learning, both
for one’s personal needs and in the workplace and this can be an efficient way to bridge the sometimes wide
gap between junior and senior faculty.
Networks
For long, individuals within the junior faculty group have been anonymous and many times alone
with their thoughts and ideas. By providing a large network within the Junior Faculty, individuals are being
identified and can easier find support as individuals and as a group.
The Junior Faculty programme provides tools to start networks for special groups of interests, such a
postdocs, clinicians and researchers with the same research interest. A Junior Faculty network can provide a
forum for discussion on common methods, projects, interests and problems. A regular dialogue between
researchers from other parts of the university world can form the basis for constructive new thinking and
favourable personal development.
The aim can also be to give a meta-perspective on research in order to see one self, one’s working
activities and one’s colleagues in a wider but tangible context. Regular meetings and networking with other
researchers are an essential element to ensure that knowledge is not just confined to its recipient but can also
be used to transform attitudes and insights which can lead to action.
Scientific excellence
In order to become an outstanding scientist it is vital that tools to improve the scientific competence
are being offered. The Junior Faculty programme offers the possibility to achieve knowledge and skills
through a variety of activities.
To enhance the establishment of scientific contacts both within the university as well as nationally
and internationally, Junior Faculty announces two sorts of grants – the Invitation Grant and the Visit the
World grant. These have proven to be excellent opportunities to start and improve scientific networks.
The former, the Invitation Grant, is a chance for two to five researchers with a clear own line of
research to come together to invite an outstanding internationally recognised scientist to Karolinska Institutet
to perform evaluation of their respective projects. To benefit from the scientific excellence of the invited
scientist, he or she is also asked to give an open lecture while visiting Sweden.
The latter, the Visit the World Grant, is a travel grant to support a visit to another research institute
abroad for a period of one to four weeks. Through the grant the successful applicant will be able to establish
contacts and co-operate around a research project with colleagues outside Sweden.
Courses in scientific writing as well as application writing held by successful scientists and excellent
falilitators are among many courses, workshops and seminars, examples of the activities that Junior Faculty
offers in order to strengthen scientific skills.
To meet the needs of a broad competence base, advanced courses in both leadership and project
management are being offered as well as courses on how to improve funding application skills, presentation
techniques etc.
Postdocs
With a strategy to focus on junior scientists, Karolinska Institutet has an explicit strategy to actively
recruit more postdocs (researchers who hold a PhD awarded within the last five years)80. Consequently, Junior
80
Karolinska Institutet defines a Postdoc as an individual who holds a PhD awarded within the last five years, possesses a source of funding or
is financed by a department at Karolinska Institutet and is being mentored by faculty for advanced training and to gain skills. In exceptional
cases, this five year period can be extended by one year due to circumstances such as parental leave, internship, illness or military duty.
139
Faculty has made a strategic effort to meet the needs of the recruited postdocs and to enhance the
attractiveness of Karolinska Institutet. A Postdoc coordinator has recently been appointed within the Junior
Faculty programme with the tasks to identify the postdocs at KI and to pinpoint the specific obstacles and
needs for this group. Additionally, the postdoc coordinator serves as a reservoir of information, rules and
regulations and assistance for postdocs during their stay at Karolinska Institutet and addresses issues
concerning this specific group, such as funding, work environment, education and well-being.
Junior Faculty will soon release the “Handbook for postdoctoral studies at Karolinska Institutet”,
providing useful tips on how to make the most of the time at the university.
The impact of the Junior Faculty programme
All together, these activities have proven to be complementary and an efficient way of responding to
the needs of adaptation to the demands of improved knowledge and skills in a number of areas.
Alongside, the Junior Faculty programme has proven to be successful in attracting national media
attention to the university as well as cooperating partners from other universities, the industry and other actors
on the scientific arena such as scientific journals and funding bodies. As a result of the successful
implementation of the Junior Faculty programme, an initiative has been taken to gather junior and senior
researchers from all Swedish medical faculties in March 2005, to a top-level meeting in the presence of the
Minister for Higher Education and Research. This will clearly be an opportunity to discuss and highlight
concerns on the political agenda, both from the standpoint of the university as well as from the standpoint of
junior researchers.
Conclusion
To stimulate the young talented scientist, it is important to create a positive attitude among junior
researchers, towards research, and also to improve incentives for co-operation. It is also of decisive
importance for universities to safeguard the competence and to create favourable conditions to keep excellent
researchers within the university. In order to achieve this, junior researchers must be strengthened as a group
and given the opportunity to acquire all the knowledge needed to be successful in the world of research.
Likewise, attractive opportunities must be given to those who prove themselves to be excellent.
Karolinska Institutet has by initiating the Junior Faculty programme, succeeded in providing tools to
create a favourable and dynamic working climate for junior researchers to develop their careers and acquire a
positive attitude towards research and the working opportunities it provides. The Junior Faculty is a concept
that, in the last years, has not only raised the awareness for junior researchers about the importance of career
planning and personal development, but also addressed issues concerning junior researcher to decision-makers
within and outside the university. Several actors within the research society benefit from these actions;
-
the junior researchers that have been identified and represented as a group
the university that will be able to recruit and maintain highly motivated and talented researchers
the industry that are provided with a platform to meet the most successful and brilliant researchers
the society that will have a scientific work-force with the best opportunities possible.
The Junior Faculty initiative shows that the university considers junior researchers to be a strategic
group in which investment is worthwhile. Setting up a Junior Faculty programme is a strategic investment that
allows the encouragement of researchers to grow in their roles within Academia as well as it serves as a tool
to the society at large to benefit from the competence provided. Cooperation and exchanges with actors
outside the Academia help to provide the vital dynamic that is needed to underpin high quality research.
Many of the junior researchers active at European universities are foreign, as researchers often go
abroad to achieve new impressions and to maximise the use of this period. It is naturally desirable that foreign
researchers should act as ambassadors upon returning home. In other words, considering this aspect, it is
important for universities to create goodwill by focusing on junior researchers´ job satisfaction and career
opportunities which will be of decisive importance in the future competition.
140
As from what is proven since the start of the Junior Faculty programme at Karolinska Institutet, the
possibilities to address the interests of the group has improved as the group has founded a platform on which
to unite. Similar initiatives start to arise at other universities in Sweden and by cooperating nationwide the
group is strengthened further and the situation of junior researchers has been visualized for the politicians.
Much is gained by co-operating to create a sense of belonging to a group irrespective of the geographic
location. And much is gained for universities in strengthening co-operation. It is time to set up Junior Faculty
offices Europe-wide!
141
The PhD students of the Italian-French university from 1998 to 2003
Luisella Romano
PhD student, Evaluation Committee, University G. d’Annunzio
Chieti-Pescara, Italy
lu.romano@unich.it
Abstract
We present a survey on the 223 PhD students, 115 women and 108 men, enrolled in the PhD program from 1998 up
to 2003, organized by the Italian-French University, instituted the 6 October 1998 (with the Italian location in
Turin, the French in Greenoble). The international PhD program of Italian French University, which provides for
each student a balanced stay both in an Italian and in a French University under two distinct supervisors, leads the
obtainment of the PhD degree both from the Italian and the French universities. We have sent by e-mail a
questionnaire to 141 PhD students and 91 have filled it up. The questionnaire includes 56 questions divided in three
parts: experience’s valuation, scientific production, employment perspectives. We have analysed the following
characteristics: geographical distribution, gender, type of high school diploma, type of academic degree, age of the
students at the doctorate’s beginning. We have built five indicators dealing with experience’s valuation:
supervision, competence’s development, intellectual climate, structures availability, thesis’ evaluation, aims and
expectations, general satisfaction; then we have calculated averages and trends in the last sex years. Because of the
role played by doctorate recipients in the international circulation of intellectual resources, surveys about their
destination are absolutely necessary.
Keywords: PhD evaluation; PhD internationalization; PhD and labour market
The essential mission of the University is to increase the human capital of the Nation, producing and
transferring knowledge; the doctorate is the link between teaching and research (Bordese, Predazzi, 2004).
In Italy, the doctorate was established by the D.P.R. 382/80 and began in 1983, in great delay with
respect to all other European countries, especially Germany (Paulsen, 1906) and Great Britain (Simpson, 1983).
At the beginning, the programs had the goal to improve the general scientific formation of young graduate
students (at that time, the Italian University released a single degree, the “laurea”, something in between the
bachelor and the master degrees). Twenty years later new ideas emerged, pointing to a more specific
formation through the research, not contradicting the old idea of a specific formation for the research, but also
directing the doctorates towards a professional formation, to be spent in a wide spectrum of research activities
in public bodies and private enterprises (D.M. n°224, 1999).
The National Committee of Evaluation of the University System (CNVSU) is endowed to report
annually on the situation of courses of doctorate in Italy and on the evaluation procedures practised by the
single Universities. Apart from a quantitative analysis (the creation of the doctorate, its organization, and its
way of working), a qualitative analysis (scientific production of the PhD students, research qualification of
professors and tutors, professional results of young researchers, customer satisfaction, etc.) was also required.
On the basis of the available dates (National Committee of Evaluation of the University System,
2003), the most important and accepted conclusions, after the first 20 years of the doctorate programs in Italy,
are:
•
insufficient attraction of the Italian doctorate on foreign students (98% are Italian, being this case
unique among all European and industrialized countries altogether);
•
few doctorates involving sufficiently wide scientific areas;
•
scarce mobility (Bianchetti, Marchesini, 2001) of the students (only 20% had experiences abroad);
•
extremely high age for the obtainment of the title (50% of the doctors is 36-40 years old).
The teaching activities of the doctorate exhibit a variety of situations, both internal and external
(summer schools, conferences, etc.), but also indicating that only 37% of the students have attended a specific
formative activity (Bianchetti, 1999). Moreover, serious doubts arise on the effectiveness of the financial
resources and scientific and operative structures available for the students, while the information about their
scientific production is vague. Finally, whereas the normative requirements are not always fully satisfied, the
weakest point is the seldom practice of the cooperation with the public or private bodies (allowing in principle
to the PhD students a working experience outside the academia and/or abroad).
142
Since 1999, local attraction of the PhD students has increased (local attraction is defined as the
percentage of the number of winners of the entrance examination in a certain year with respect to the number
of graduates of the previous year in the same university); this change has been determined not only by the
increase of the government funding for fellowships and of the admitted students, but also, in many
universities, by a definite increasing of financial resources, coming either directly from their own cash or
funnelled from private bodies: this represents a positive tendency.
In 1999, the rate of success of the Italian doctorates (defined as the ratio between the number of
students who obtained the doctorate in one specific year and the number of freshmen entering the program 3
or 4 years before) was estimated as 87% (Schimd, Stefanelli, 2003).
The production of new knowledge coming from the research can be a real and strong opportunity for
the renewal and the evolution of a society in all its sectors, scientific and humanistic, only if these results can
be transferred into innovative products and processes. This requires a continuous interaction between
university, industry and third sector: the use of highly skilled figures, such as the doctorate recipients, in the
working market is one of the ways to realize these results.
Mobility and internationalisation are useful to keep the PhD students and junior researchers in touch
with different realities of study and research, in the same time helping them to have more working
possibilities. This kind of activities are practiced nowadays for 50% in purely academic contextes, but can
become an inestimable resource for private interests, as shown by the French Association Bernard Gregory
(A.B.G.), which helps the junior researchers to find a job. The French experience is unique, for the moment,
and the A.B.G. is working with the Amèdèe project to expand its activity in Europe (Bordese, Predazzi, 2004).
Italy exhibits a low number of doctorate recipients, 3557 (62 per million of inhabitants) in the year
2000 (Rubele, 2003), respects to 70175 doctorate recipients in U.E. (185 per million of inhabitants) and 1891
in Finland (365 per million of inhabitant); only 3-4% of doctorate recipients is absorbed by private
undertaking with respect to the 80% of other European nations (Germany, UK, USA).
In Italy the situation of researchers is frankly dramatic, in a international comparison: in 2001, the
researchers per 1000 workers were 6 in U.E-15, 8 in U.S.A., 9 in Japan and only 3 in Italy (European Commision,
2004).
According to the legal position of the PhD students, there is a great difference among the European
countries (Eurodoc, 2002):
• collective bargaining (in Germany, Denmark, Austria);
• scholarship (in Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium);
• mixed system, that means, a scholarship in the first 2 year a collective bargaining in the following 2 years
(Sweden).
Also the regularization of the research activity and the supervision in the doctorate is very different
among the European countries and, often, among the universities of the same Nation:
• in Germany and Spain the system is completely deregulated, with an evident lack of external controls; in
these systems, the supervision belongs to one person only (the supervisor) and the candidates interact only
with him/her;
• France and Netherlands have articulated schools of doctorate, but there are still problems in terms of
supervision;
• in Great Britain and in Austria there are “supervision” panels, including also non-academics, which guide
the candidate in his/her research activity.
To promote internationalisation, it would be advisable to reach a uniformity and a minimum standard
for the entire course of doctorate in the different countries.
The Conference of Berlin, September 2003, dedicated to the so-called Process of Bologna,
recognized formally the doctorate as the 3 th level in the university formation in Europe, thus suggesting a
homogeneous 3+2+3 system for the higher education in Europe. The internationalisation process of the
doctorates is considered as a political priority, aiming to activate exchanges of persons and knowledge for an
efficient formation of human capitals and to improve the quality of the research. It’s easy to imagine that, if
the present condition in the different Nations will not change, the differences between the various universities
will become stronger and not weaker, as intended.
In Italy, there are generally linked-courses and courses in co-tutelage of thesis. In both cases the
formative ways are complete and the research project is defined by the interested universities, on the basis of
an institutional agreement.
PhD students attend alternatively the involved institutions, under the supervision of a tutor for each of
them: the final examination is also connected and takes place at the presence of all tutors. At the end, a
qualification is issued, signed by all the academical authorities of all the universities involved, following the
“one service - one title” rule (connected title) or the national titles (double title), respectively.
143
Doctorate recipients produce knowledge during their doctoral training, but circulate knowledge
mainly after they have been awarded the doctorate. Because of the role played by doctorate recipients in the
international circulation of intellectual resources, surveys about their destination should be absolutely
necessary. The Italian university has probably to further renovate its formative offer, both to face the
professional needs of the society and to favour technological improvement of teaching.
The aim of the present work is to check the advantage of doctorates in co-tutelage with respect to the
conventional ones (i.e. conducted in a single university). The comparison is made by analysing the situation of
the PhD students of the French-Italian University (U.F.I.), with respect to the students of the G. D’Annunzio
University (U. d’A.).
The methodology has been taken from a previous work for the evaluation of the doctorate of U.d’A.
(Sargiacomo, 2003). We have to underline that is very difficult to include in a single questionnaire all the
elements determining the efficiency of a doctorate. The strength of this evaluation consists in the attention on
critical factors common to all the doctorates, which is based on a questionnaire, opportunely modified, with 56
questions divided in three sections:
• the evaluation of the Experience (1998-2003);
• the Scientific Production (1998-2003);
• the occupational possibilities (1998-1999).
The following elements of the formative course have been analyzed (by phone or e-mail contacts):
gender, type of the high school degree, type of university (lower level) degree, distance between high school
and university degrees; distance between the university degree and the beginning of the doctorate; age at the
beginning of doctorate; Region of origin (for Italian PhD students) and of destination in Italy (for French PhD
students). Analysis of data for each element will offer the possibility to check the advantages of the cotutelage, the relationships between the gratification of the PhD students, their scientific production and the
working possibilities.
U.F.I. has been founded after an accord ratified the 6 th October in Florence, within the ambitious
program of internationalization of the Italian university system (U.F.I., 2000). The main aim of U.F.I. is the
improvement of the academic cooperation between the two countries, in particular in continuous education
and research. Since 2002, U.F.I. also manages a program of scholarships for the mobility for doctoral thesis in
co-tutelage and a program of doctorates between the two countries aiming to the creation of French-Italian
excellence-networks. U.F.I. began its activity after the Scientific Council became operative, at the FrenchItalian Summit in Turin on February 2001, and is located in Greenoble, for France, and in Turin, for Italy. The
international PhD program of U.F.I. provides for each student a balanced stay in an Italian and in a French
University, under two distinct supervisors, and leads to the obtainment of the PhD degree both from the Italian
and the French universities involved.
In the period examined, 153 Italian (84 women, 69 males) and 70 French PhD students (with an
inverse proportion between genders) have been involved in the U.F.I. program.
The questionnaire has been sent in September 2003, to 90 Italian PhD students (59% of the total) and
in April 2004 to 51 French PhD students (73%), with a rate of answer of 68% and 59%, respectively (Table1).
The Italian PhD students come mainly from Northern Italy (54%), 24% from the Centre and only
14% from the South, with an intriguing larger presence of males in the North, 65%, and of females in the
South, 56%. 52% of the interviewed Italian PhD students have a scientific high school degree (with no
distinction of gender). The gender is a discriminating element for the French students (60% of women
attended a scientific secondary school, 58% of males a classic one).
Many of the interviewed French students declare to have an Italian high school degree, while the
others indicated the corresponding Italian title. 53% of the Italians answering the questionnaire graduated in 56 years (with large differences between genders), while 8%, all of them males, graduated after 10-11 years.
Among French students, 71% of females and 53% of males graduated in 5-6 years. In both the academic
structures analyzed, most of the students graduated in humanities. Among the interviewed Italian PhD
students, 54% of females graduated in a scientific area, while the 40% of males in a humanistic area; among
the French ones, the situation is exactly the opposite. 45% of the students began the doctorate within one year
from graduation (in the both countries). 5% of the Italian students, all females, began the doctorate in the same
year of the graduation. In the six years analyzed, the Italians, at the moment of the registration, were on
average 28 years old, by being the women younger than the men by 2 years (79% of those who attended the
third level of university education after 31 were males). Among the French students, the average of the
starting age of the doctorate was 27, with no distinction between genders, whereas no one of the interviewed
students was older than 31.
The questionnaire indicated the degree of satisfaction of the students on important aspects of the
formative activity of a doctorate. The answers have been grouped in order to generate 7 indicators of
efficiency: supervision; development of the competences; intellectual climate; availability of the structures;
144
evaluation of the thesis; aims and expectations; general satisfaction. The most important element appears to be
the supervision, because, if non continuous or problematic, can cause delays in the graduation or even
abandons (and this happens everywhere in Europe). We asked whether the supervision was available during
the moments of difficulty and the tutor understood the problems, whether he/she gave information about the
research activity, whether he was a positive guide in the choice of arguments and of literature search, whether
he/she established a good feed-back.
Table 1. PhD Students of the Italian-French University from 1998 to 2003, distinguished by year, sex
and country of origin
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
T
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
T
Italian PhD student
Enrolled
Questionnaires Sent % of Contacts
Answers
W M T
W
M
T
W M T
15 11 26
8
7
15
58%
6 4 10
14 11 25
1
2
3
12%
1 2 3
14 8 22
8
3
11
50%
5 3 8
15 10 25
10
6
16
64%
8 5 13
14 11 25
12
10
22
88%
5 8 13
12 18 30
10
13
23
77%
6 8 14
84 69 153
49
41
90
59%
31 30 61
French PhD Students
Enrolled
Questionnaires Sent % of Contacts
Answers
W M T
W
M
T
W M T
6 5 11
3
1
4
36%
1 1 2
1 4
5
2
1
3
60%
0 1 1
8 4 12
1
1
2
17%
0 1 1
6 3
9
6
3
9
100%
6 3 9
4 10 14
4
10
14
100%
3 7 10
6 13 19
6
13
19
100%
2 5 7
31 39 70
22
29
51
73%
12 18 30
% of Answer
67%
100%
73%
81%
59%
61%
68%
% of Answer
50%
33%
50%
100%
71%
37%
59%
The second indicator was dealing with the degree of influence of the research activities on the
increasing competences in problem solving, in learning to develop ideas and write them, in improving
analytical skills and the ability of planning and facing the problems.
In a second moment, we analyzed the possibilities offered by the Departments, to get in touch with other PhD
students, to develop a culture of the research in a wider sense, within seminars and other formative activities.
We asked the PhD students whether they had access to adequate working spaces, to technical
supports and equipments, computers and services and fair financial funds for the research. We checked
carefully whether the PhD students understood the expected standards and those necessary for the thesis and
the evaluation elements. All the analyzed elements were synthesized in the latest 2 questions, aiming to know
the degree of satisfaction of the students about the 3 th level of the university formation and if they would like
to attend the same doctorate again. The Italians presented the highest level of satisfaction in terms of fair
evaluation of the thesis, while problems arise in terms of the intellectual climate and in the supervision
efficiency, in the lack of formal teaching and of feed-back on the working process with the tutor. 25% of the
Italian students stressed a significant difference in their research activity in Italy with respect to that made in
France, showing a greater satisfaction for the French experience. Among the Italians, we have to make clear a
geographic differentiation of the percentage of satisfaction according to the supervision which was 63% in the
North, 58% in the Centre, 50% in the South (Table2).
We have registered an insufficient satisfaction in terms of the development of competences in the
students coming from Centre (65%), with respect to the others. Everywhere, we registered scarce satisfaction
regarding the intellectual climate (51% in the North, 64% in the Centre, 49% in the South), while the
evaluation of the thesis obtained large satisfaction, 86%, 73% and 100%, respectively. Among the French PhD
students, we have registered the lowest level of satisfaction in terms of the intellectual climate, 62%, and also
in this case the main complain was the deficiency of seminars; nevertheless, 93% of the students declared to
be generally satisfied. On average, women were more satisfied about the structures, because they had an easier
access to computers and other services, and about the development of competences, because the research
145
refined their competences in problem solving and in the analytical competences; men, on the contrary, were
more satisfied about the evaluation of the thesis, which was finished in a reasonable time, and about aims and
expectations. There were no differences according to the supervision, 72% for both genders: for males, the
supervisor has always been fully available, when needed, while women obtained a better guidance in the
search of important literature. The highest satisfaction for all the analyzed indicators, was registered for the
students coming from Southern Italy.
Table 2. Indicators of the average percentage in the satisfaction of PhD Students in U.F.I. from 1998 to
2003, distinguished by sex and Region
Indicators
Italian
French
Italian (provenance)
T
M
W
T
N
C
S
M
W
Supervision
57% 66% 52% 72% 72% 72% 63% 58% 50%
Competence’s Development 79% 83% 75% 87% 83% 94% 80% 65% 84%
Intellectual Climate
53% 60% 48% 62% 61% 64% 51% 64% 49%
Structures
70% 75% 66% 76% 71% 83% 74% 70% 64%
Thesis’ Evaluation
97% 100% 95% 83% 82% 73% 86% 73% 100%
Aims and Expectation
69% 74% 65% 83% 84% 81% 66% 64% 66%
General Satisfaction
78% 80% 74% 93% 92% 95% 81% 68% 82%
French (destination)
N
C
S
68% 71%
92%
86% 86%
95%
63% 50%
85%
75% 69%
90%
71% 82%
89%
75% 99% 100%
88% 100% 100%
The Italian students seemed to be more satisfied then the French ones only for the fair evaluation of
the thesis, + 14%. All the interviewed women, both French and Italian, would like to repeat the doctorate,
while among males, 11% and 33%, respectively, express a negative opinion and would not repeat this
experience.
We asked in the questionnaire whether the PhD students published the thesis (or a summary of it) in
national or international context, within a period of three years, or after the attainment of the qualification.
Among the Italians, none published the thesis or an extract of it in national context. In the first three years, the
male PhD students published more than the females PhD students in national context; in the following three
years the situation became the opposite.
None of the females published the thesis, or an extract of it, in an international context; on the
contrary, this element accounts for the 25% of the males in the first analyzed period, and doubled in the
following period. We have to recall that only the PhD students of the 1998 and 1999 have already discussed
the thesis, whereas those of the 2000 were just ending their research during the time of the present analysis
and those who entered the PhD program in the 2003 are just beginning the formative course. The Italian
female PhD students have more publications on national and international journals.
Between the French, female students have published more in national sphere, while men in
international sphere. The greatest number of works has published in international sphere, for both sexes, both
in Italy and in France.
The last 21 questions are about the professional market, that means: whether the interviewed had a
previous job before the beginning of the doctorate (connected or non connected with the research); whether
the time passed between the end of the doctorate and the first job (less than of 12 months, between 12 and 24
months, more than 24 months); coherence between the doctorate and the present job. In both countries, 24%
of the novel researchers of 1998 and 1999 answered the third sections of the questionnaire about the
occupational possibilities.
58% of the Italians had an employment associated with the research: the 16% became researcher (in
equal number between those who were employed in the same university of the doctorate or other universities);
8% had been employed in an Italian research body (this percentage raises to the 17%, in abroad research
bodies); 17% got a post doctorate scholarship. None was unemployed or spent more than 24 months to get the
first job (the 75% spent less than one year) and only the 17% was already employee before the beginning of
the doctorate. The degree of doctor of research, is absolutely necessary for the specific job, for the 66% of the
interviewed people, useful for 17% and totally unnecessary for the remaining 17%; for all the Italian women
the degree was necessary, whereas for the 50% of the interviewed of both sexes there was no coherence
between the present job and the academical studies.
42% has, at the moment, a job unrelated with the research they did: 8% has been employed in a firm
out of the region in which they attended the doctorate; 17% had an own job; 8% teach in a high school; 8%
returned the previous job. 67% of the French people had, at the present, a job connected with research: 33% is
a lecturer in a university abroad; 17% hold a post-doctorate scholarship, as for those who obtained a collective
bargaining part-time or temporary position connected with the research. 17% couldn’t find a job. All the
students needed less than 1 year to find their first job. For all the women the degree was fundamental for their
146
present job, while it was not relevant for the 25% of men. 7% of the interviewed, according to their
experience, would not repeat the doctorate again (which becomes the 11% of those men younger than 30). The
coherence between the doctorate and the present job was, for all the French men, total; for the 50% of the
women it was only partial; none thought it was of no value.
Now we are going to compare the situation of the PhD students in the French-Italian University
(U.F.I.) with respect to the students of the G. d’Annunzio University (U. d’A.). At U.d’A., 42% of the PhD
students from 1996 to 2003 has a scientific high school degree and 28% a classic one; gender represents a
discriminating element only in the U.F.I. (50% of women attended a scientific high school). At U.d’A., 39%
of the PhD students needed 6-7 years to get the degree, with no distinction of gender, while in the U.F.I. 71%
of women attended university for 4-6 years (contrary to 53% of men).
18% of the U.F.I. students took an art degree, while 34% of U.d’A. took a degree in Medicine or Architecture
(sex was a non discriminating element in both academical realities).
45% of U.F.I. students, from both countries, but only 26% of U.d.A. students, began the doctorate one year
after the degree.
The average age at the moment of the registration to the doctorate, is 30 for U.d’A, 27 for U.F.I.:
women are, in both academical realities, one year younger than males.
At U.d’A. there were many problems in terms of structures, especially with regard to the financial support for
the research activity, while at U.F.I. main problems are associated to the intellectual climate, in particular to
some deficiencies of planned teaching activities: the highest satisfaction, in both universities, was in the
objectivity of the evaluation of the thesis and in its reasonable timings.
The greatest differences between U.F.I. and U.d’A. were registered in the supervision, according to
the feed-back on the improvements and the guidance in the research of basic literature, with an average of
satisfaction respectively of the 62% and 73%; this is understandable, because in the first case the PhD students
has to cooperate with two different academical realities, which have to be conciliated (often only one tutor in
France and a Faculty College in Italy), while in the second case the student makes his research activity in a
single structure, likely already familiar, because it was the same university in which the lower degree was
taken and the entrance examination given. At U.F.I. men are, according to the seven analyzed factors, more
satisfied with respect to women, while at U.d’A. we have registered the opposite (with the exception of the
evaluation of the thesis).
The italian-french program is surely the first type of doctorate, in Italy and in Europe, needing strong
incentives. U.F.I. women publish more than men in national context, while there is no gender difference in the
international one. U.d’A. women have a more conspicuous scientific production than males, either in national
or in international context.
At U.d’A., PhD students seem to be more efficient in a national context, while the opposite is true for
U.F.I. students, which, in general, publish more than those of U.d’A., without differences in gender (Table3).
Table 3. Scientific Production of the Italian-French University from 1998 to 2003, distinguished by
sphere, sex and university
Scientific Production
National
International
U.F.I.
U. d 'A.
M
F
T
M
F
T
53% 59% 56% 40% 42% 42%
70% 69% 69% 36% 40% 39%
At U.F.I. all the interviewed women would repeat again the experience of the doctorate, whereas at
U. d’A. only 81% will do the same; the percentage among people with previous working experience is 11% in
U.F.I. (all of them having an activity connected with research) and 35% in U.d’A. (of which, 10% with an
activity not connected with the research). In both academical realities there is no difference neither between
those who found a job connected with research, nor between those who have a job not connected with
research: unemployment rate at the time of questionnaire was 6% and 55%, respectively. At U.F.I. none spent
more than 24 months to get the first job (at U.dA., 3,5%), while in U.d’A the 90,6% of those who answered
the third page of the questionnaire found an employment within the 12 months after the thesis (at U.F.I. this
percentage drops to 82%). At U.d’A., 42% of the people having an activity connected to the research, declare
it as temporary (at U.F.I.: 23%) and 16% as permanent (at U.F.I. : 38%). Among those who found an
employment not connected with the research, 6% of U.F.I. students continued the previous job (in U.d’A. this
percentage doubled).
The doctorate in co-tutelage has many advantages:
• people finding a permanent job in research is higher (almost the double);
• a lower number of students continues the same occupation they had prior the doctorate;
147
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the average age of the beginning of the doctorate is lower;
scientific production in the international context is larger, for both sexes;
a larger coherence is found between the formation during the doctorate and the activity as young
researchers.
There are disadvantages too:
a modest implication of the Italians Regions of the Centre and the South;
a prevalence of humanities students;
a prevalence of Italian students;
an excessive bureaucracy.
It’s advisable:
the creation of specific scholarships for doctorate and post-doctorate programs, providing an adequate
salary, so that Italy can “compete” in the recruitment of students and PhD students;
the organization of structures of hospitality for foreign students, so that Italy can be compared with
the structures existing abroad;
the simplification of the fulfilment of the accords;
more transparency in the compilation of the announcements of the calls.
The key point is that the cooperation between two different academical realities should not generate a
duplication of the problems, and therefore it is necessary to have an equal and detailed regulation.
The autonomy of universities doesn’t mean in any case absence of rules, but must be exploited to improve
a continuous and structural interaction between universities, concerns and services in different territorial
realities.
The doctorate in co-tutelage Italy-France, with a firm experience of 6 years, is certainly an example to
follow and can be further improved. The present situation is very different with respect to that of the 37
“pioneers”, 26 Italian and 11 French PhD students (and the corresponding tutors and supervisors), who in
1998 began this activity of academic cooperation between the 2 countries in the frame of the high formation
and research.
References
D.P.R. n°382 (1980).
D.M. n°224 , (1999) , from http://www.murst.it/regolame/1998/dotart3.htm.
Bordese, G., Predazzi, E., (2004), Dottorato: Cuore e Motore della Ricerca , International Meeting, Torino, 1-5.
Paulsen ,F., (1906), The German Universities and University Studies, London. Logman, 3.
Simpson , R., (1983), How the PhD Came to Britain. A Century of Struggle for Postgraduate Education, London:
SHRHE/NFRE-Nelson.
National Committee of Evaluation of the University System, (2003), Document, 10/3, 6.
Bianchetti, M.., Marchesini, G., (2001), Il nuovo dottorato di ricerca: obiettivi e valutazione, National Meeting,
Padova,1-6.
Bianchetti, M.,(1999), Il Dottorato di ricerca: esperienze a confronto in Italia e in Europa, National Meeting
Padova, 22.
Schimd, R., Stefanelli, M., ( 2003), La ricerca universitaria: esperienze, modelli e proposte, National Meeting,
Roma, 1-4, 208-209.
Rubele, R., (2003), Valutazione delle esperienze di internazionalizzazione del dottorato di ricerca, National
Meeting, Padova,12.
European Commision, (2004), Key Figures 2003-2004, 44.
148
Eurodoc, (2002) , Conclusion Books, 15-18.
Sargiacomo, M., (2003), Le best practice nei dottorati di ricerca nell’Università “G. d’Annunzio, Azienda pubblica
5-6, 495-523),
Sargiacomo, M., (2004), Measuring The Quality of PhD Courses: The First Italian Study on the Evaluation of
Employment Prospects and Experiences, International Meeting, University de Toulon et du Var Editor,157-173.
U.F.I., ( 2000), Atti del seminario franco-italiano, Greenoble, 89
Acknowledgements
This paper is an abstract of the thesis’ elaborated during the doctorate in “Instruments and Methods
for the Evaluation of the University System” in the Evaluation Committee of University G. d’Annunzio. The
author wishes to thank heartily Professor Mario Bressan (President of Evaluation Committee and her tutor) for
having suggested and managed all steps of this research and Professor Emanuela Reale (Member of the
Evaluation Committee and her tutor) for precious and absolutely necessary advices.
149
Living science on the rim between mobility and stability
Mihaela Gheorghiu
International Centre of Biodynamics
46-48 Calea Plevnei, 010233, Bucharest 1, Romania
mgheorghiu@biodyn.ro
Eugen Gheorghiu
International Centre of Biodynamics
46-48 Calea Plevnei, 010233, Bucharest 1, Romania
egheorghiu@biodyn.ro
Abstract
We reappraise the problem of the difficult situation of scientists from the EEC from the perspective of stabilization
& institutional reinforcement actions versus “brain drain”. The concept might not be new, but was effective in a
country facing dilution of material and human resources assembled in obsolete scaffolds – the national research
institutes and reduced university research units, and has as main coordinates: improved research environment,
sustained networking both nationally and internationally, stronger links with economic environment, integration of
master and doctoral programs in co-tutelage schemes and common research projects, better visibility and
participation in international initiatives.
This is the result of a team effort of enthusiasts (at some point considered only idealists) that forged the
establishment of a new type of research institution and considered that stability (mobility schemes not exceeding 12
months in a row) and institutional reinforcement are the only alternatives for having a place where to come back.
We are, therefore, proud to provide some landmarks of what we consider a possible success story of competing in
science and living science on the rim between mobility and stability in an accession country.
Preamble
With the forthcoming integration of 10 new countries, amongst which Romania will hopefully take its
rightful place in 2007, Europe is progressing towards unification. Science already made that quantum leap:
there is a global, not local science, same problems require same resources, scientists are the perfect vectors for
unification, speaking the same language: of knowledge.
During the last decade we have witnessed sustained initiatives for reconstruction of the scientific cooperation between the countries of Southeast Europe and the rest of Europe. This has contributed already in
several ways to the efforts of East European Countries to organize better with the view of joining the so-called
European Research Area (ERA). But it also requires common grounds on which discrepancies between
countries could mold in a convergent platform that could propel the ERA “out from the woods”. This calls for
upright decision bodies (socially and politically visible, meaningful funding, strategic, medium term
developmental plans) and coherent, though diverse, pool of scientists fit for the new challenges put forward by
the 21st century society: highly trained, motivated, involved in mobility schemes and, most important, in
collaborative research (with regional and international dimensions) tuned to the real societal needs.
Collaborative research – the key to development
The role of the regional scientific co-operation among Southeast European countries and between
them and the rest of Europe for revitalizing the national S&T&I systems and integrating them into European
Research Area is a topic in fashion.
The problems, including the delicate economic environment seem to be pretty similar in Eastern Europe,
thereforestrongerregionalcooperativelinkscouldcontributeto solvingcommonproblems. It has been
recognized that the development of sound research collaborative projects in some fields of highest priority
such as: life sciences, environmental sciences, material science, information and communication technology,
problems of sustainable development etc might serve as a breeding ground for developing regional expertise,
150
establishing centers and networks of excellence fostering the reinforcement and stabilization of human
potential in science in these countries.
Institutional reinforcement – having a place where to come back
In a country facing dilution of material and human resources assembled in obsolete scaffolds – the
national research institutes and reduced university research units, such as Romania, achieving these objectives
required the establishment of a new type of research unit whose main coordinates should be: improved
research environment, sustained networking both nationally and internationally, stronger links with economic
environment, integration of master and doctoral programs in co-tutelage schemes and common research
projects, better visibility and participation in international initiatives.
After a long and difficult process (initiated in 1997), the International Centre of Biodynamics has
been established in 2000 following an agreement between the Romanian Government and UNESCO. But the
establishment was the smallest problem of all:
• as is the case of most Research Institutes, the funding is provided through project competition, there
is NO institutional funding, no GIFT;
• stopping the “brain drain” (not only to abroad but also to industry and to other sectors not connected
with science) requires material resources (e.g. competitive equipment, attractive salaries), scientific
incentives (e.g. mobility schemes), access to information and the reappraisal of research personnel
status;
• providing a suitable lodging;
• acquiring new competences.
Therefore, we had to be pretty active to submit and get financed RTD projects through National RTD
Programs financed by the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, and International Programs with
success in FP5, FP6, COBASE of NRC, US and projects financed in the frame of bilateral agreements with
Flanders, Germany, France to enumerate only some of the current projects.
Unfortunately, with very few exceptions (e.g., FP’s programs of the EC) International Programs do
not cover research activity (that would also comprise salaries) that takes place in Romania. The opportunities
offered by FP 6 cannot solve all the problems related to research and technological development in SEEC’s.
These problems have to be addressed and gradually solved by a concerted, well coordinated action integrating
all appropriate instruments offered by different bilateral and multilateral programmes, actions and initiatives
at international and national levels.
The current recession triggered a marked decrease of the actual budgets of national programs in
Eastern and Western Europe, as well. Therefore, the competition for support programs (like FP6) became a
matter of “survival”, tougher than ever, regardless the location of the actors!
To access international programs one has to be not only at “crossroads” but the competence of the
respective group has to play a solid, not formal, role within the consortia that are developing the proposals (IP,
STREP, NOE,..). The location issue for institutions from the Candidate Countries in Central or Eastern
Europe is no longer an asset.
Another prerequisite to be accepted in the team preparing a proposal is the VISIBILITY of the group!
Definitely, both visibility and competence are developing in conjunction with networking, i.e., collaboration
at local, regional and European/International scale.
Nothing can be achieved without skilled people. Development of Human Resources in conjunction
with mobility of either junior or mature researchers has to be considered. At ICB great efforts are devoted to
this issue: besides an International Post Graduate Program in Biodynamics that started in 2003, organised
together with the University of Bucharest, and UNESCO Centre for Membrane Science and Technology,
Sydney, Australia there are several bilateral projects and projects initiated under UNESCO auspices and
specific actions aimed at the development of ICB regional collaborative network, that gathers representatives
from Romania and from 15 European countries. These initiatives are meant both for training and building up
new collaborative bridges at regional and international scale. Particularly, the regional collaborative network
has as main objectives:
• to contribute to the stabilization of the RTD potential in the region through a continuous stream of
joint projects offering to young researches and master, Ph.D. levels a suitable place for them to work
after the accomplishment of different training stages;
• to act as a powerful array of flexible, highly competent, small size research groups;
151
to become rapidly compatible with international programs dedicated to the development of Central
and Eastern European region, as well as with the regional market; with respect to an appropriate
program, a specific chain of partners within the network could be readily formed;
• to effectively use the existing resources without major investments to equip a large number of
laboratories belonging to a single, huge institute; the equipment for small size research units might
be, at least partially covered from national, local sources;
• to mutually reinforce their research institutes and universities particularly from Central and Eastern
Europe in their research and training capacities, by sharing resources, and by undertaking joint
activities based on equal partnership.
In this context, mobility related to advanced training (under co-tutelage) and/or joint RTD projects is
considered the “rescue boat” facing the stream of brain drain.
•
As a token of the viability of ICB’s approach, our centre has been recently selected as one of the 8
research units in Romania to receive considerable support from the EC, under the special call for Romania,
Bulgaria and Turkey, to reinforce its research infrastructure and human potential. This support, having an
important component allocated to reinforcement of the human potential towards strengthening ICB
participation to FPs calls, by hiring new (young) highly trained researchers, by establishing a continuous
stream of staff mobility schemes and by developing postgraduate programs will, hopefully, trigger a chain of
events that will eventually provide practical solutions leading to increasing motivation of young / mature
researchers to pursue a scientific career, most important, in connection with their home land.
The key word is active involvement in international cooperation while seeking to reinforce and
stabilize one’s skilled personnel. Short and long stages in top laboratories are encouraged, especially related to
joint research projects. Currently, two ICB postdocs are specialising in material sciences (Dr. Daniel
Andreescu at Clarkson University, US) and physiology (Dr. Sanda Despa at Loyola University Chicago, US).
And the efforts seem not in vain: after a period of “brain drain” the ICB staff has been strengthened
with top level researchers returning to Romania after doctoral and postdoctoral stages in Belgium, The
Netherlands and Germany. They are currently involved in mobility schemes in conjunction with ongoing
collaborative projects. It might be worthwhile mentioning that one benefited from a NATO Return Grant (the
amount is low, but there is no restriction to apply for it, unlike the Marie Curie Return Grant scheme that
requires a prior Marie Curie Fellowship).
Instead of Conclusions
Survival and, nevertheless, development implies a new condition not only for managers of Research
Units but for research staff as well: The entire team learns to conduct research but also to manage proposals
from the earliest step to the hopefully, successful one of negotiation. The role of grass-root scientists in this
process is essential, and all bottom up initiatives of this kind are encouraged. The researcher is regarded as
one of the biggest asset of the Centre, a pole for stabilization and for personal and institutional development.
In the end, its the researcher that provides a possible success story of competing in science and living science
on the rim between mobility and stability in an accession country, the rest is just revolving around, more or
less, available.
152
Young researchers in Romania – survival and hope
Crina Cismas
Ad Astra association of Romanian scientists
Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
crina@ad-astra.ro
Razvan Florian
Ad Astra association of Romanian scientists
Center for Cognitive and Neural Studies, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
florian@ad-astra.ro
Abstract
Romania’s R&D manpower decreased from approximately 150,000 people in 1989 to 39,985 people in 2003. Less
than 20% of them are young scientists. Can we speak about a scientific vocational crisis in our country? From one
point of view, a scientific career in Romania is a matter of survival, from bad working conditions to poor
infrastructure, subjective grant-funding criteria and inadequate professional autonomy. The decrease in relative
income and in the social prestige of the scientific and academic community adds to the reduction of the desire of
youth for performance in sciences. Despite the difficulties there are good reasons for hope. First, over the past two
years a slight growth in the interest of the responsible authorities concerning young scientists can be observed by
introduction of special grants and scholarship programmes. Second, new information and communication
technologies are providing unprecedented access to existing knowledge. Third, the international scientific
community is, by its nature, an open system characterised by a culture of free sharing of basic knowledge, and
international mobility brings important advantages.
1. Background
If in 1989 there were about 150,000 people working in R&D institutions in Romania, the official
statistics registered only 39,985 in 200381. The number of researchers is currently slightly increasing,
after a sharp decrease between the fall of the communist regime and 2000 (Chart 1). Less than 20% of
the researchers working in Romania are young scientists.
Chart 1. The evolution in time of the number of researchers in Romania,
according to the official statistics.
The decrease in the number of researchers in Romania can be explained through their re-orientation
to other sectors, the reduction of the desire of youth for performance in science and, above all, by the fact that
81
Romanian Statistical Annuary
153
many young researchers choose to continue their scientific career abroad. There are no official statistics
available to determine levels of “brain drain” over the past several years, but an estimation can be made using
the Ad Astra database. The Ad Astra association administrates a database in which the Romanian researchers
can voluntarily register on-line.82 Nowadays there are over 800 persons registered in this database and 222 of
them have registered scientific publications with international relevance. The following information refers to
this last category, that of Romanian scientists having international competitiveness.
Their distribution by country shows that 64% of Romanian researchers are working abroad, most
of them in USA (29%), France (7%), Canada, Germany, United Kingdom (5% each) (Chart 2).
Chart 2. Distribution by country of the Romanian researchers
(according to the Ad Astra database)
The Ad Astra database provides additional important information: the majority of Romanian
researchers abroad are young, with the median age around 35 years, while the researchers who work in
Romania have a uniform age distribution between 30 and 60 years (Chart 3). And the situation does not
seem to improve since according to a 2002 survey on science and technology of the European
Commission 66% of the Romanian students would like to emigrate.
2. Possible causes for the dramatic decrease in R&D manpower in Romania
The migration of young researchers – so called “brain drain”– is an international issue; the salaries,
infrastructure and prestige found in US R&D institutions make it difficult for any country, from Japan to
Canada and EU, to retain their own skilled young people and research staff. There are currently 85,000 EUborn researchers working on R&D in the United States.83 But, beyond the global view, particular reasons
apply to post-communist countries and the major concern is that a significant number from the top-graduates
are leaving the country. Considering the severe problems of the Romanian research this was the solution
chosen by many in order to be able to continue in their profession. Some of the causes that determined the
present situation are discussed below.
82
83
http://www.ad-astra.ro/whoswho/
http://europa.eu.int/comm/publications/booklets/move/48/en.pdf
154
45
40
Percentage
35
Romania (Ad Astra
figures)
Romania (official
figures)
Abroad (Ad Astra
figures)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Age
Chart 3. Age distribution of the Romanian researchers.
2.1 Low funding of the R&D sector
R&D expenditures in 2003 and 2004 were only 0.21% of the Romanian GDP (Gross Domestic
Product), the lowest figure among European countries – with a median R&D expenditure of 0.75%.84 This
leads to inadequate work conditions (satisfaction of young researchers strongly depends on them): from the
paucity of literature to old equipment, and to the decrease in relative incomes as well as of the social prestige
of scientific, academic and engineering staff.
2.2 Bad management of the existing funds
The main problem affecting Romanian research is the subjectivism and lack of transparency in the
evaluation process of the grant proposals, researchers and research institutions. The official criteria still give
almost as much credit to publications in obscure local scientific journals as to those in top international
journals85, thus allowing for promotions and funding of people who have local influence, but not necessarily
competitive results. There are a lot of negative consequences but in particular none of the young researchers
that do top level science in institutes abroad will return to these conditions. Moreover, by promoting the nonvalues, this system continues to motivate other scientist to leave the country.
The absence of an organism for unbiased evaluation of research and a lack of R&D statistics should
also be mentioned. Without rewarding the performance of internationally competitive research groups the
limited funding available for research in Romania will inevitably be misused.
2.3 Mentality
“Whom you know and not what you know” is a general issue all over the world, but the lack of
objective criteria worsens the situation and, in many cases, personal connections matter more than scientific or
educational skills. Quantitative criteria as promotion criteria favour graphomania, and there are many
situations when the number of publications is more important than the content itself. On the other hand, many
Romanian scientists and professors have travelled abroad and understand how quality science is done, but not
all try to apply these lessons back in Romania.
While the lack of both results and motivation is understandable when the basic elements required for
research are missing, and while it certainly cannot be said that Romanian researchers are lazy, unfortunately in
some cases this apathy has been taken to extremes and becomes a self-defeating excuse to simply give up. The
84
85
European Commission, Statistics on Science and Technology in Europe, 2003. Available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/
http://www.cncsis.ro/CENTRE_CERCETARE/STIINTIFICE/Formular_centre_cercetare_stiintifica_2004.rtf
155
enthusiasm of any young person for research - with all the sleepless nights and weekends lost in the lab - is
ultimately related to the power of example.
3. Hopes
These problems have been presented to the European and Romanian authorities on different occasions
in the past, but major improvements have not yet been seen. Still, the implementation of special targeted
grants for young researchers by the CNCSIS (National University Research Council - the main institution
from Romania that allocates funds for high quality research and postgraduate training in the Romanian
universities) should be mentioned. It administrates only about 5% of the R&D expenditure.
1. The TD programme was initiated in fall 2002 and finances full time PhD students, younger than 30
years old. The distribution per year is:
• 2002 - 74 grants awarded, 360 Euro per PhD student per year, 245 applications
• 2003 – 57 grants awarded, 500 Euro, 207 applications
• 2004 – 169 grants awarded, 700-1,700 Euro, 460 applications
• 2005 – 124 grants awarded, 1,070-17,850 Euro, 406 applications
2. The AT programme started in 2000; the project manager should be not older than 35 and be a PhD
student or should have a PhD. The team can consist of 1-5 scientists per project and there is much
freedom in the type of expenses that can be covered. The programme encourages young researchers
and prepares them for open competition for grants.
• 2001-2002: 418 grants awarded (232 new, 186 continued; 895 applications); average grant: 1160
Euro per project per year; 307-8,457 Euro; total budget: 484,654 Euro. Unfortunately funds were
paid later than planned: call for proposals in November 2001; contracts signed in July (rather
than April, as planned); 30% of funding paid in September 2002, the rest of 70% in December
2002. However, the results of the projects were due for evaluation in November 2002, i.e. before
the grant was paid.
• 2002-2003: 218 new grants awarded (1,000-6,000 Euro), 792 applications
• 2003-2004: 96 new grants awarded (880-13,600 Euro), 195 applications
• 2004-2005: 63 new grants awarded (1,420-16,900 Euro), 189 applications
However, lack of transparency in awarding CNCSIS money, lack of public accountability and lack of
communication with the research community undermines CNCSIS activity.
There are situations when the interest in science and the good managerial skills of department heads
from some Romanian research units or groups represent the decisive factors in pushing toward quality
research. The same skills of these heads of laboratories lead to partnerships in international fellowships
(Tempus, Socrates, Marie Curie, other bilateral projects), which promote important collaborations between
Romanian laboratories and prestigious laboratories abroad. These fellowships promote a lot of PhD students,
and, what is very important, these PhD students find the possibility to keep their own research work back
home. Also, these research units further benefit from international fellowships by bringing in know-how and
high quality scientific work, thanks to the PhD students. The regular research stages abroad bring not only an
important improvement of the scientific activity, but also the necessary allowance for living as researcher in
Romania.
4. Concluding remarks
In order to counterbalance the migration of young researchers, by encouraging them to remain in
Romania or by motivating the return of those already working abroad, the main causes – objectivity in
evaluation and raising the R&D expenditure to the negotiated 1% of GDP86 must be implemented. Science in
Romania, even within the context of the ERA enlargement, is possible only if a suitable R&D framework will
be provided at the national level. The new leadership and a proper consideration of R&D work can be the way
to accomplish that. The worst economic circumstances may not explain the disregard of R&D necessities, for
86
http://www.mie.ro/Negocieri/English/position_doc/CAP17-DP%20eng.doc
156
real performance. The special facilities to encourage the return of scientists with fellowships or special grants
cannot work in the current framework.
The next step would be to invite qualified, well-known scientists, some among them expatriates, to
teach and do research in Romania. When the performance in scientific activity is properly recognised and
decent living and working conditions are provided, their return will become natural because many of them
have affective bonds with Romania. As the country experiences brain drain at increasing levels, returning to
Romania to teach is, in itself, the best starting point for rebuilding Romania's human resources. This needs to
be a large-scale solution, i.e. the government needs to sanction it.
There are no adequate conditions, but if we continue to wait for someone else to do something, we
might wait a lifetime. It is up to us, those who believe in research, motivated scientists, both expatriates and
working in Romania, to drive this change. Our only option, in principle, is to never give up – it sounds so
easy, but in fact it is extremely hard, because we have to persevere and be patient at the same time.
Joint actions ensure higher chances of success than individual ones and, besides research networks,
we need interdisciplinary networks of researchers interested in identifying solutions and lobby for their
implementation. Ad Astra87 is a project devoted to the Romanian scientific community, programmatically
aimed at the young generation and, among others, at initiating and maintaining a flux of information that will
facilitate scientific co-operation within the Romanian scientific communities, in order to encourage and advise
young researchers in Romania and to provide an open discussion forum on science and education policies,
with the declared aim of presenting coherent reform proposals to the Romanian political establishment.
87
http://www.ad-astra.ro/
157
Mobility and academic career: Reforming the ‘inbreeding’ system in Central
and Eastern Europe
Agnieszka Majcher
Institute for Social Studies, University of Warsaw
Warsaw, Poland
agszka@poczta.onet.pl
Abstract
This article seeks to address the issue of international mobility and academic careers in the context of current
reforms of the higher education and research sector in Poland. The Polish academic labour market is the biggest in
central Europe and is expected to grow further. There are also pressures to reform academia so that it is able to face
the challenges of globalisation, to catch up with better performing countries, and to offer to new generations of
researchers decent career opportunities. At the core of the debate is the problem of inbreeding, academic
recruitment and promotion. This article discusses the ‘inbreeding’ system and academic careers and argues that
mobility is both a problem for the system (and researchers) and a key to a successful reform of the system.
In the early 1990s, with the tide of democratisation and economic liberalisation, Eastern European
universities and higher education systems faced great challenges adapting to the new environment and
regaining autonomy, and from growing pressures due to the expansion of higher education and dwindling
financial resources. The Polish higher education system witnessed two unprecedented developments – the
number of students skyrocketed and hundreds of small private higher education institutions were established.
At the same time the number of academic teachers stagnated, the non-university research labour market
shrank and low academic wages and a lack of research funding discouraged younger cohorts from entering an
academic career.
Currently new challenges are arising – the Bologna process, the globalisation of the academic and
research labour market, pressures on quality assurance and increased investments into science. In terms of the
research/academic labour market it also means incentives are being introduced to attract talented graduates
and scientists to come and stay in research and academia, along with introducing transparency of the
recruitment and promotion process, and encouragement of mobility.
The reforms of the 1990s did not shake the pillars of the academic career model, which comprises: a
long process of qualification marked by a doctorate, habilitation and topped up with the professor’s title, and a
high degree of ‘inbreeding’ – promotion is generally within the same university from the first degree to the
professorship, with a high degree of ‘retention’ of slowly advancing academics88. For a number of years
international mobility has not been an issue except in the context of ‘brain drain’. No effort has been made in
attracting researchers from abroad to come to Poland. Currently, the profile of the ‘mobile researcher’ is
gaining in importance all over Europe, yet in Poland the promotion of international mobility is still a
rhetorical concept. In particular, early stage researchers after having spent a longer time abroad are unable to
foster close relations with their ‘home’ institution and face difficulties with reintegration within the university
system back in Poland. This is due to the lack of access to information and social networks, the lack of
transparent recruitment procedures and the lack of open competition. The time spent abroad also does not
normally count as relevant work experience unless one was on leave from the home university. At the postdoctoral level there is also the problem of habilitation since this requires submitting a habilitation manuscript
and finding an institute able and willing to ‘take in’ the candidate for habilitation as one of their own. In
Poland researchers without habilitation cannot work as independent researchers.
88
With regard to the lower positions (below full professorship) the ‘competition’ logic in a context of limited positions’ availability prevailed.
Yet, while the casualisation of academic employment has been reinforced in many Western countries ever since, the Polish academic labour
market has been by far more retentive. Anecdotal evidence shows that policy towards temporary employment had been rather flexible and had
allowed for extensions.
158
The pressure to reform the Polish academic labour market and academic careers comes from the
proponents of a greater integration of Polish academia into the European research and higher education
system. Reform may also be the answer to the deficiencies of human resources management and certain
negative trends observed in the Polish academia such as the low profile of Polish science, the mature age of
researchers at the onset of their independent work; i.e. at the moment when one starts using his/her full
scientific potential, the low effectiveness of performance-oriented instruments in personnel management, the
relatively low attractiveness of scientific work and careers, and the ‘brain drain’.
In Poland the issue of a reform of the advancement system had been of secondary importance for
most of the time. The formalism of advancement rules and their criteria had been criticised already in the
Communist period but on the other hand had been seen within the academic community as the only means to
guarantee quality in teaching and research. In the last decades of the regime the main issue was to defend
university autonomy and integrity from the regime’s intervention, and the university bet on survival rather
than reform. The 1990 law on scientific title and scientific degree89 was the first, major attempt for several
decades to reform the advancement system. As a result, the career ladder was shortened but it did not open the
professorship to younger people since the habilitation had been kept and a full professorship was earmarked
only to those with the professor’s title. The main problem of human resources management seemed also to be
the low salaries, and the perspective of ‘higher-salaries-first’ dominated the discussions on the generational
gap, low attractiveness of academic careers, negative selection to science and the problem of multi-jobbers.
The recently introduced new law on scientific degrees and scientific titles and degrees and titles in art90 raised
however much controversy about the issue of academic hierarchy and advancement (i.e. the abolishment of
the habilitation and dismissal of the Central Commission on Academic Degrees and Titles were discussed).
The discussion currently continues with the work on the new legal act on higher education. At the moment
two proposals for a new act on higher education exist. One of them is rather conservative with regard to the
academic hierarchy but undermines the stability of academic employment, which is currently based on
nomination. The second draft introduces more revolutionary changes e.g. the introduction of the American
career model but guaranteeing current employment stability91. The proposal preserving the status quo will
probably win the vote yet the problem will remain. The current situation – keeping the habilitation when other
countries (e.g. Germany in 2002) have already abolished it, accepting a high degree of inbreeding and keeping
open competition for positions a fiction – endangers the future of Polish science. It also puts at risk the
successful integration of the country in the European Research Area.
To do justice to both parties involved in the discussion we should however familiarise ourselves with
the arguments for both of the options. The reasoning is also relevant for the general European discussions
concerning the academic labour market. The question thus stays: what are the sources of the deficiencies in
the current academic career system – is it the outmoded career model itself or the pathologies of the academic
life and bad governance?
In Poland one becomes a professor by following a long process of qualification marked by a
doctorate and habilitation. The organisational career ladder corresponds to the professional/scientific one i.e.
to be granted a specific position one needs to be awarded an appropriate academic degree or title. Full
professorship is a sort of gratification of academic accomplishments and constitutes the recognition thereof. It
is definitely not a position that in principle should facilitate the academic accomplishments providing an
individual with necessary independence, resources and job stability. As a result all professors are of rather
advanced age. The habilitation marks the passage to scientific independence and happens on average in one’s
40s.
We perhaps all agree that the logic of academic promotion should be based on several key aspects: 1)
the selection of the ‘best’ candidates for the positions where they could enjoy adequate job stability and
independence in research and teaching, 2) having these people as young as possible to use fully their potential
and 3) ensuring that they will keep working effectively. In the American model the selection takes place
firstly through the qualification phase of the PhD (and postdoc fellowships) and then the so-called tenureprocess based on competitive selection of external candidates to the tenure-track positions, and evaluation of
their research and teaching record. Only candidates who pass the evaluation successfully are given tenure.
Those three elements: open competition for tenure-track positions, external application (that should help to
avoid nepotism) and evaluation constitute the selection mechanism. In Poland the latter elements are largely
missing. The external application is rare and there is no requirement of inter-institutional mobility. The
competitive character of staff selection is only theoretical. There are never enough candidates since the
89
Ustawa z dnia 12 wrze_nia 1990 r. o tytule naukowym i stopniach naukowych (Dz.U.90.65.386)
Ustawa z dnia 14 marca 2003 r o stopniach naukowych i tytule naukowym oraz stopniach i tytule w zakresie sztuki (Dz.U.65.595)
91
Both proposals differ also in many other aspects not directly linked to the career model and academic employment. For details see the web
page of the National Section of Science within ‘Solidarnosc’ (www.solidarnosc.org.pl/~ksn).
90
159
opening is hardly advertised and usually the requirements are tailored for the specific candidate. The selection
process is based then mainly on the evaluation and recognition of past achievements, and the ‘home’
community and selection body largely overlap. In the American system of tenure-track the idea is also that the
smartest young scholars should enter the tenure-track and receive a professorship as soon as possible in order
to make best use of their intellectual and scientific potential. Nevertheless, in Poland the status of nonprofessorial, habilitated staff has been relatively better, in contrast to many other countries (of course not in
financial terms). They enjoy job stability, research autonomy and corporate rights comparable with full
professors. When access to research funding is considered, the level of funding is unsatisfactory anyway and
access to funds is limited for both professors and junior staff. The next problem is that in contrast to the
American model, in Poland it takes longer to qualify as an independent researcher since in the American
model a doctorate is a sufficient scientific qualification whereas in the current Polish model one needs the
habilitation. This additional requirement ‘replaces’ the open competition as it should theoretically assure the
adequate academic and research competencies of the candidate and the high quality of his/her research. In
practise, due to the lowered ethical standards within the academic community the internal promotion leads to
the ‘promotion’ of mediocre scholars and mediocre research.
Here we come however to the important issue, namely to the conflict of values and the issues of
recruitment and promotion costs. To start with the latter, the prevalence of ‘inbreeding’ is often justified as
being a tool to reduce the uncertainty and risk of failure linked to the recruitment of ‘strangers’. Secondly, the
open competition with limited entry preconditions would result in the increase of applicants. Yet there is a
point at which the costs inflicted on the university and stemming from the growing pool of candidates
overtake the benefits. This is especially so if we strive for more than evaluation of past achievements but try
to assess the potential of the candidate to excel in his/her future work. Such evaluation of candidates is
particularly difficult when accurate information is not readily accessible and we are forced to rely on proxy
indications e.g. the number of publications instead of their quality or when there is not enough information as
in the case of young early stage researchers. Furthermore, the more candidates there are, the more
standardised and unbiased screening devices should be used. From this point of view the habilitation as a
formal achievement has its virtues. Next, what seems good for the institution does not necessarily benefit the
employees. The increased levels of competition, low job stability, high dropout rates and rejection levels and
enforced mobility constitutes an increased burden placed upon the academics.
The abolishment of the habilitation, as is sometimes called for in Poland and the further flattening of
the academic hierarchy would thus require the introduction of new selection elements that are currently
difficult to imagine e.g. requirement of inter-institutional mobility (a ban on internal application) and
competitive character of junior staff and professors’ selection (at least several candidates applying).
Until now no policy on mobility has existed in Poland. The links between the promotion of mobility
and the reform of the recruitment and advancement system are made only by the critics of the status quo, who
are marginalised in the discussion92. The establishment does not propose anything but rhetoric93 while
concrete steps are required. The relative marginalisation of Polish science and the inadequate, dilapidated
research infrastructure do not attract researchers from abroad and forces high-achieving Poles to move abroad.
This is the reason why the problem is not seen as an acute one and every single mobile researcher is forced to
find his/her way by him/herself.
92
See for instance Independent Academic Forum (http://www.nauka-edukacja.p4u.pl).
See Ministry of Science and Information Society Technologies: Polish position regarding the research policy of the European Union, February
2005 (http://intranet.kpk.gov.pl/sl/MOC/sciencepolicyPL-UE.pdf)
93
160
Recommendations
161
The Lisbon conference "Early Stage Researcher Mobility in Europe" and the MCFA events within the
Career Programme of the "EuroScience Open Forum 2004" in Stockholm brought together a large number of
people from many different backgrounds, all of them concerned with issues related to researcher mobility and
scientific careers. From the talks and the lively discussions within plenary sessions and targeted workshops a
broad range of conclusions and recommendations have emanated, with a view to improving the situation of
young and not so young (mobile) researchers, and to offering them better prospects for their career
development. The recommendations have been presented to the European Commission and a number of other
relevant stakeholders and are summarised below.
Mobility
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Mobile researchers suffer from not being adequately integrated in the host institution and country.
Effective provisions for the scientific and social integration of mobile researchers should be mandatory
prerequisites for host institutions to receive public funding within mobility programmes. This includes
the provision of childcare facilities for researchers with children, language training, assistance in the
search of adequate employment for accompanying partners etc. Host institutions should train their staff
better in order to be able to effectively help foreign researchers to settle in.
In this context, it would be highly advisable for research organisations and universities to establish
dedicated “Support offices for scientific mobility” at local level. These offices should complement and
closely collaborate with the official members of the ERA-MORE Network of Mobility Centres, but
also with the already existing offices for student mobility, which would be particularly important with
regard to early stage researchers.
The status of third-country researchers needs to be redefined. Especially young researchers often suffer
from the overly strict application of immigration laws, forcing them to leave their host country as soon
as their fellowship is over or their thesis defended, without giving them the opportunity to finish
projects in progress or to look for follow-up funding. Researchers with families are also particularly
affected by inflexible visa procedures, forcing them to spend many months in the host country without
their families. Entry procedures need to be simplified and the success in applying for a visa or a work
permit less dependent on the good will of the consular staff in charge. The current initiatives by the
European Commission regarding the introduction of scientific visa are very encouraging but the
process needs to be accelerated and the recommendations made at European level quickly implemented
in the national legislations.
The recognition of foreign qualifications at Master or PhD level needs to be simplified significantly,
covering both the recognition for professional purposes and the academic recognition. The
establishment of national “positive lists” of accredited institutions whose degrees should be recognised
automatically would be a first step in this direction. Joint degree programmes and “co-tutelles” should
be further developed and promoted.
Mobility programmes should not be conceived in a one-way direction. The return of the fellow and the
reintegration phase should already be taken into account from the start (without making it mandatory).
Sending young people abroad without providing adequate provisions for their return is irresponsible
and can lead not only to brain drain in the sense that the researchers concerned stay abroad, but can also
lead to them abandoning their research career altogether. More research is needed about return rates
and the factors influencing researchers' decisions to return or not. The results of these studies should be
reflected in national policies as well as in the conception of future fellowship schemes both at national
and European level.
Increased efforts are necessary to benefit from the expertise of the scientific Diaspora, especially for
those countries suffering from brain drain who are currently not in a position to provide a lot of
incentives for emigrated researchers to return. Networking opportunities for researchers abroad must be
increased, and better information provided about the opportunities for return that do exist. The ERAlink initiative of the European Commission that is designed to provide such support to European
researchers in the US can be quoted here as a good example, even if it is still in a pilot stage. Another
good example is the German Scholars Organisation that not only provides networking opportunities but
also actively seeks to establish contacts between German scholars abroad and German industry (as
potential employers for returnees). More informal networks such as the Romanian association “Ad
Astra” can also play an important role in keeping the scientific Diaspora informed of national
developments.
The lack of relevant information about career opportunities, funding possibilities etc. is still a burning
issue especially in the Eastern and South-Eastern European countries. A better co-ordination and
162
8)
collaboration between the different information providers and a more transparent and open policy with
regard to the 7advertising of opportunities is needed. Information days jointly organised between
various relevant organisations could help especially young researchers to find the information they are
looking for. Alumni societies and clubs can also help in this respect and should be supported by the
organisations they “belong to” (host institutions or funding bodies).
The constant lack of funding both for individual support (grants, salaries) and at institutional level
(infrastructure, equipment) constitute serious constraints to the scientific development in many of the
new EU member states and candidate countries. This leads to a waste of talent within the countries
concerned due to the diminishing attractiveness of scientific careers and the brain drain towards other
professions caused by economical pressures at individual level. It is also one of the main reasons for the
continued outflow of highly skilled people to other countries, within and outside of Europe. In order to
counteract these developments, more funding needs to be provided both at institutional and individual
level. One way to do so would be to increase participation in international and especially EU-funded
projects.
Research Careers
1) One of the major obstacles to more competitive research in Europe is the sustained culture of inbreeding.
The national academic markets in Europe should increase transparency in recruitment and promotion
policies, adequately recognising the importance of a mobility experience, which is an intrinsic component
of the European Commission's Marie Curie Actions as well as other international and national initiatives.
This includes geographic as well as disciplinary or inter-sectoral mobility.
2) Job opportunities in science and research should be broadly advertised, internationally where appropriate.
Enough time should be given between the publication of the opening and the deadline for submission of
applications, so that international applicants are not disadvantaged. The use of the European Researcher's
Mobility Portal for advertising scientific jobs should be actively promoted so that it will develop into the
standard source of information on scientific job openings in Europe. Positions should be clearly defined,
the qualification requirements and the criteria for assessment should be specified in the advertisement. All
evaluation procedures should offer the opportunity for appeal, and decisions by the recruitment committee
should be documented through publicly available minutes.
3) The introduction of a unified status for European researchers is urgent to raise their professional
recognition, in view of the fundamental role research plays in the knowledge-based society. In this
context, the European Commission's initiative of producing a European Researchers' Charter and a Code
of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers should be broadly supported by all relevant stakeholders,
ranging from national policy makers, heads of institutions, all the way down to the lower levels of the
institutional hierarchy. The principles laid out in these documents should be transformed into institutional
policies and guidelines.
4) A clear definition of the research career would make it possible to gather statistical data for scientific
studies and encourage regulation on employment rights and social security (health care, pensions,
maternity leave, childcare centres, etc.). The availability of consistent data on a European level is one of
the prerequisites for a meaningful European policy for the promotion of mobility and scientific careers.
Data should be gender segregated in order to allow for gender issues to be addressed appropriately in
future policies.
5) In the research world, women are often still considered to be a “reserve army” rather than at equal footing
with their male colleagues. Existing differences in treatment (e.g. with regard to salaries or opportunities
for professional advancement) need to be analysed and their deeper (often very complex) reasons tackled.
The daily life of a researcher is often not very family compatible, and women are usually more affected
by this than men. In order to get more women into research, scientific careers need to become more
family friendly. Research institutions both in the public and the private sector are urged to re-evaluate
their institutional policies in order to make it easier to combine both family life and a successful research
career for men and women.
6) In view of the growing international dimension of research in general, the international dimension of “soft
sciences” will become increasingly important as well, hence must be accounted for in forthcoming
policies. Funding mechanisms for basic research are needed in Europe for the accomplishment of the
Lisbon Declaration. The creation of a European Research Council will help to keep a balance between
applied/applicable science and basic as well as “soft” science. Today's basic science is tomorrow's applied
science!
163
7) More funding specifically for early career researchers at postgraduate and post-doctoral level needs to be
made available. While such funding is readily available in some disciplines and in some countries, this is
not the case in general. Especially at postgraduate level funding is often tied to teaching or other jobs at
the university and is not offered for the research work itself. Consequently, there is often a lack of
financial means for research related costs such as conference attendance, which is of great importance
especially for early career researchers who need to make use of any available opportunity in order to build
up and expand their networks.
8) In most European countries the image of researchers in society is not very high. In order to make
scientific careers more attractive not only the realities of the profession need to be changed, but also the
perception by the general public and by the younger generation in particular. Awareness raising
campaigns not only for the importance of science to modern society, but also for the role that scientists
and researchers play in it, should be promoted both at national and at European level. The European
Commission's “European Researchers' Initiative” that has been launched for the first time in 2004 should
become a regular element of the Marie Curie Actions programme.
Training
1) Training programmes for (young) researchers should include opportunities for the acquisition of
competencies other than those that are of purely scientific relevance. Transferable and interpersonal skills
are gaining more and more importance both within and outside of academia, and especially young
researchers must be adequately prepared for careers in either setting. Such training opportunities should
be open to more advanced researchers as well in order to give them the chance to update and complement
their training in a continuous way.
2) Training supervision (especially within doctoral programmes, but also at post-doctoral level) needs to be
improved. Researchers need to receive appropriate guidance towards independence. Institutions should
develop “Guidelines for Supervision and Training” that are not only acceptable for all parties involved,
but in which both supervisors and young researchers see their needs and interests reflected. The Eurodoc
Supervision and Training Charter could serve as a model in this respect.
3) Institutions should offer more mentoring programmes, where younger researchers can benefit from the
guidance by more senior colleagues and from their expertise, in particular also in non-scientific areas such
as career planning. Training for mentors but also for scientific supervisors should be offered on a regular
basis (“training the trainers”). Participation in these training sessions should be facilitated and
encouraged.
Governance
1) The scientific community and in particular the young researchers should be more actively involved in the
policy making process. (Young) researchers should be invited more often to contribute to expert groups
and advisory boards, both at national and at European level. More senior researchers and in particular
experts who are not coming directly from the research world are often unaware of the real problems that
especially younger colleagues are facing. Policy makers should actively seek the dialogue with young
researcher organisations.
2) A similar recommendation holds with regard to funding organisations. They should be closely involved in
the process of developing national and European policies in the area of scientific careers and researcher
mobility. Where appropriate, policy recommendations coming out of this dialogue should be taken up by
these bodies and reflected in their own funding policies.
3) Early career researchers should obtain a recognised status within the national and institutional regulatory
frameworks. As such they should be entitled to be represented in decision making bodies at all levels
(university senates for example). In many cases the different groups of representatives are defined on the
basis of their employment situation, not on the basis of their career stage (for example: students,
untenured researchers with employment contract, tenured professors, administrative staff). Early career
researchers without employment contract or with scholarships are often completely excluded from
participation in the different institutional bodies and have no chance of taking part in shaping the
institutional policies that directly affect them.
164
Annexes
165
Detailed Programme of ESRM2004
Wednesday 25th February, 2004
15:00 -16:30
Welcome, opening remarks, introduction
Speakers
• Diogo de Lucena (Gulbenkian Foundation Governing Board)
• Representatives from the organising associations
Keynote Speakers
• Raffaele Liberali (European Commission, DG Research, Director of Directorate D: The human
factor, mobility and Marie Curie activities): “New European initiatives in favour of the training,
mobility and career development of young researchers”
• Paola B. Arimondo (Musée National d'Histoire Naturelle Paris, Marie Curie Excellence Award
2003): “A Marie Curie fellowship: the starting point”
17:00 -19:30
Round table 1: Existing fellowship schemes: strengths and weaknesses
Session Chair
• Jens Degett (European Science Foundation)
Speakers
• Antonio Coutinho (Director Gulbenkian Science Institute): “10 years experience with PhD
students mobility”
• Birgit Klüsener (German Academic Exchange Service): “DAAD - Change by exchange”
• Guntram Bauer (Human Frontier Science Programme): “The Human Frontier Science
Programme”
Discussion
Thursday 26th February, 2004
9:00 -12:00
Round table 2: Administrative obstacles to early stage researcher mobility
Session Chair
•
Jan Sadlak (Director UNESCO-CEPES)
Speakers
• Sveva Avveduto (IRPPS - Istituto di Ricerche sulla Popolazione e le Politiche Sociali): “Obstacles
to the mobility of researchers”
• Belén Rebollo García (FECYT - Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología): “Obstacles
to the mobility of researchers (Spanish case). Initiatives to remove them”
• Siobhan Harkin (CHIU - Conference of Heads of Irish Universities): “Obstacles to researcher
mobility in the early stages - real or perceived?”
• Karsten Vandrup (Nokia Corporation): “The Industry demands mobility”
166
Discussion
12:00 -13:30
Parallel workshops
Workshop 1: Mobility to and from eastern European countries
Chair of the workshop
• Charles Woolfson (MCFA; Director of ECOHSE, European Centre for Occupational Health,
Safety and the Environment)
Papers presented during the workshop
• Monika Baar (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin): “The problems of young
scholars wishing to return to their home countries after longer research stays abroad”
• Juan-Carlos Carrillo (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf): “Moving from Latinamerica to
Eastern and Western Europe. A cultural and legal challenge”
• Piotras Cimmperman (Lithuanian Society of Young Researchers): “Examples of mobility in
Lithuania”
• Lidija Honzak (Ad Futura, Science and Education Foundation of the Republic of Slovenia):
“Mobility from Slovenia”
• Liliana Popescu (Civic Education Project Romania and Bulgaria): “Barriers to 'Brain Gain'. The
Case of Highly Qualified Romanian and Bulgarian Researchers in Social Sciences”
• Dragos Postolache (Council of Young Researchers of the Academy of Sciences of Moldavia):
“Existing obstacles to mobility of young researchers from Moldova”
Workshop 2: Promotion of early stage mobility - the influence of the cultural framework
Chair of the workshop
• Timo Lajunen (MCFA; Middle East Technical University, Ankara)
Papers presented during the workshop
• Roxana Bojariu (Romanian Researcher Organisation “Ad Astra”): “Cultural constraints of early
stage mobility in Romania”
• Dimitri Sanopoulos (Co-ordinator of the Greek National Mobility Centers Network):
“Presentation of the Greek Mobility Centres Network (GNMCN) and PYTHEAS project”
• David Atienza (Marie Curie Fellowship Association): “How early stage research mobility can
change completely your point of view about multicultural research expectations”
• Özgür Ünal Eri_ (University of Bahcesehir): “Research in a foreign country: problems and
prospects”
• Timo Lajunen (Middle East Technical University, Ankara): “Psychological aspects of mobility”
Workshop 3: Different disciplines - different needs for mobility
Chair of the workshop
• Stephanie McBader (MCFA UK national group; University of Kent)
Papers presented during the workshop
• Maria Bostenaru Dan (University of Karlsruhe, Germany): “Mobility in engineering sciences inter/multidisciplinarity versus high specialisation”
• Sabine Rehberger-Schneider (European Molecular Biology Organisation): “Introduction to the
Life Sciences Mobility Portal of EMBO”
• Priya Bondre-Beil (German Research Foundation DFG): “Short presentation of the DFG
International Research Training Groups”
• Aira Lepik and Merle Pihlak (Tallinn Pedagogical University): “The international dimension in
postgraduate research training: the case of Nordic and Baltic countries”
167
15:00 -18:00
Round table 3: The social dimension of early stage researcher mobility
Session Chair
• Ingrid Karlsson (Director Collegium for Development Studies, Uppsala University): “How can the
problem of the social dimension of early stage researcher mobility be approached? An
introduction to the Round Table.”
Speakers
• Agnete Vabø (NIFU - Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education):
“Barriers to mobility in research training”
• Riku Matilainen (ETUCE - European Trade Union Committee for Education): “Early stage
researcher mobility - problems and possibilities”
• Marcela Linkova (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic):
“Engendering research institutions: Gender discrimination and work-life balance”
• Stefania Bettini (European Commission, DG Research, Directorate D): “The Researcher's
Mobility Portal and the European network of mobility centres: new tools for researchers in
Europe”
Discussion
18:00 -19:30
Parallel workshops
Workshop 4: Gender and family aspects of early stage mobility
Chair of the workshop
• Françoise Praderie (Euroscience Honorary Vice-President)
Papers presented during the workshop
• Helen Stalford (University of Liverpool) and Louise Ackers (University of Leeds): “Partnering,
parenting and mobility in the EU: Issues facing migrant scientists.”
• Philippe Moguerou (IREDU, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon): “A double gender-family
inequality in international mobility of young researchers”
• Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc mobility workgroup): “Identifying examples of best practice regarding
early stage researchers mobility through a web-based survey”
• Kiril Shaparov (University of Glasgow): “Gender discourse in Ukraine and how it affects
researchers mobility”
• Luisella Romano (University G. d'Annunzio Chieti, Pescara): “The PhD students of the ItalianFrench University from 1998 to 2003”
• Marcela Linkova (Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic):
“Engendering research institutions: gender discrimination and work-life balance” (complements
to the plenary session talk)
• Françoise Praderie (Observatoire de Paris): “Young women researchers and mobility: how to
improve the situation”
Workshop 5: Recruitment policies in academia and the valorization of early mobility
Chair of the workshop
• Gadi Rothenberg (MCFA; University of Amsterdam)
Papers presented during the workshop
• David M. Hoffman (Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Finland):
“Internationalization at home, internationally attractive academic aorkplaces and academic
mobility: emerging notions and perspectives in the European education and research area.”
168
•
•
Magda Lola (Marie Curie Fellowship Association/CERN): “International recruitment at CERN”
Agnieszka Majcher (Institute for Social Studies, University of Warsaw): “Risks related to the
long-term mobility of researchers. Eastern-European perspective.”
Workshop 6: Early mobility and the non-academic employment market
Chair of the workshop
• Paola di Pietrogiacomo (Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, JRC Sevilla)
Papers presented during the workshop
• Sandra Aresta (Hybrigenics, Paris): “Moving from academia to industry - an example in the
biotechnology field”
• Kuang-Hsu (Iris) Chiang (RUSE - Research Unit for the Sociology of Education, Turku):
“Defining the relationship between industry and university”
• Lacramioara Moraru (Lucian Blaga University Sibiu, Romania/Research Center Henri Tudor,
Luxembourg): “Mobility and the theory of constraints applied to university management”
Friday 27th February, 2004
9:00 -11:30
Round table 4: International experiences
Session Chair
• Alexandre Quintanilha (Director IBMC Porto)
Speakers
• David Schindel (NSF- National Science Foundation, Europe Office): “International mobility for
american students and post-docs - support from the National Science Foundation”
• Damtew Teferra (Center for International Higher Education, Boston): “Predicaments in mobility
of youngintellectuals - African perspective”
• Shingo Hamada (Center for Technology and Society, National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology, Tsukuba): “Historical and sociological meaning of internationalization
of Japanese basic research in the world”
• Hidefumi Katayama (Center for Technology and Society, National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba): “Visiting research interviews on researcher's career
paths in STP-STS-MOT”
Discussion
11:30 -13:30
Reports from the parallel workshops and general discussion
Rapporteurs
• Workshop 1: Raoul Tan (founding member of Eurodoc)
• Workshop 2: Carolina Cañibano (Euroscience; Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid) - European
Network on Human Mobility)
• Workshop 3: Sandra Bohlinger (Eurodoc mobility workgroup and gender equality workgroup;
THESIS e.V. - German Network of Young Researchers)
• Workshop 4: Damjan Nemec (Vice President of PI-net)
• Workshop 5: Renzo Rubele (Eurodoc Vice President; Universita' degli Studi di Salerno)
• Workshop 6: Alex Lewis (former President of Eurodoc, Eurodoc mobility workgroup)
169
15:00 -16:00
Keynote Speakers
• João Caraça (Director of the Science Department, Gulbenkian Foundation): “Mobility and young
researchers: Warum?”
• Lesley Wilson (Secretary General of the European University Association): “Why do we need
mobility?”
16:00 -16:30
Conclusions and preliminary recommendations, closing of the conference
Speakers
• Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair and Euroscience)
• Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Governing Board and MCFA)
Posters on display throughout the conference
• Louise Ackers and Bryony Gill (University of Leeds): “IMPAFEL Science on the Move Assessing the impact of the Marie Curie Fellowship Scheme “
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Louise Ackers and Bryony Gill (University of Leeds): “Mobility and Excellence in the European
Research Area (MOBEX2). Promoting balanced growth in an enlarged Europe”
Patricia Arsene (Executive Agency for Higher Education and Research Funding, Bucharest):
“From West to East - a symbiosis of cultures through education and research”
Zoran Arsov (“Josef Stefan” Institute, Ljubljana): “Family and career conflicts for the Early Stage
Researcher”
Michael Arvanitis (National Observatory of Athens): “Mobility to and from Greece: case study on
a Greek research institute”
David Atienza Alonso (Marie Curie Fellowship Association): “Early mobility is very relevant to
create prepared scientists for non-academic employments”
Chiara Bisagni (Politecnico di Milano, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aerospaziale): “Why mobility
is so important for young researchers working in technological fields”
Carolina Brandi (Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies/CNR, Rome): “Highly
skilled Migrants Inflows and Outflows in Italy”
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc mobility workgroup): “Identifying examples of best practice regarding
early stage researcher mobility through a web-based survey (poster accompanying the oral
presentation in Workshop 4)”
Anja Grage (Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany): “Exchange experience within the
International German-Hungarian Research Training Group”
Cecilia Grevby (Göteborg Univeristy): “Marie Curie Actions - thoughts for the future!”
Ivona Ihlarova (Basic school teacher, Klastor pod Znievom/PhD student): “Example of best
practice: experiences during my study stay at DTU in Denmark”
Péter Kerey (DOSZ - Association of Hungarian PhD Students) and Marta Maczel (WAYS - World
Academy of Young Scientists): “Research and mobility in Hungary: starting out and getting on”
Snezana Krstic (University of Belgrade, Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy): “Involving a
European dimension in scientific careers in the south-eastern European countries - a step forward
towards the European integration”
Gordan Mijovski (Medical faculty - Ljubljana): “Mobility to and from eastern European countries
- pitfalls and how to bypass them”
Nicolas Minec (Laboratoire Universitaire d'Astrophysique de Nice): “A personal expereince - my
reasons for working at SAO-RAN in the Russian Caucasus”
Philippe Moguerou (IREDU, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon): “Doing a post-doc abroad: the
benefits upon return of your migration”
Øyvin Sæther (Norwegian University of Science and Technology): “Marie Curie Training Sites at
NTNU”
Biljana Zikic (Ljubljana Graduate School of Humanities, Institutum Studiorum Humanitatis):
“Opportunities and obstacles in mobility of young researchers from the Balkan countries to the
future EU countries (Slovenia)”
170
Workgroups preparing the parallel workshops before the conference
Workgroup 1: Mobility to and from eastern European countries
Coordinator of the preparatory workgroup
• Enrico Piazza (President of PI-net)
Rapporteur of the workgroup
• Raoul Tan (founding member of Eurodoc)
Other members of the workgroup
• Charles Woolfson (MCFA; Director of ECOHSE, European Centre for Occupational Health,
Safety and the Environment)
• Patricia Arsene (Executive Agency for Higher Education and Research Funding, Romania)
• Dora Groo (Director of the Hungarian Science and Technology Foundation)
• Peter Kerey (Eurodoc mobility workgroup; Doktoranduszok Országos Szövetsége (DOSZ) Association of the Hungarian PhD Students)
Workgroup 2: Promotion of early stage mobility - the influence of the cultural framework
Coordinator of the preparatory workgroup
• José Pereira Leal (Association “Science for Development” and former Gulbenkian fellow; MRCLaboratory of Molecular Biology)
Rapporteur of the workgroup
• Carolina Cañibano (Euroscience; Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Madrid) - European Network on
Human Mobility)
Other members of the workgroup
• Timo Lajunen (MCFA; Middle East Technical University, Ankara)
• Inese Sviestina (Eurodoc mobility workgroup; Latvian Academy of Culture)
• Alexis-Michel Mugabushaka (Center for Research on Higher Education and Work, University of
Kassel)
Workgroup 3: Different disciplines - different needs for mobility
Coordinator of the preparatory workgroup
• Hugo Horta (Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research Lisbon)
Rapporteur of the workgroup
• Sandra Bohlinger (Eurodoc mobility workgroup and gender equality workgroup; THESIS e.V. German Network of Young Researchers)
Other members of the workgroup
• Stephanie McBader (MCFA UK national group; University of Kent)
• Claude Kordon (former President of Euroscience, coordinator of the Euroscience workgroup
“Future of Young Scientists”)
• Jan Taplick (Programme manager, European Molecular Biology Organisation - EMBO)
Workgroup 4: Gender and family aspects of early stage mobility
Coordinator of the preparatory workgroup
• Toni Gabaldón (former Eurodoc Vice President, coordinator of the Eurodoc mobility workgroup)
Rapporteur of the workgroup
• Damjan Nemec (Vice President of PI-net)
171
Other members of the workgroup
• Françoise Praderie (Euroscience Honorary Vice-President)
• Campbell Warden (former President of the European Association of Research Managers and
Administrators (EARMA), EARMA working group on equal opportunities)
• Louise Ackers (MCFA; Director of the Centre for Study of Law in Europe, University of Leeds)
• Sally Goodman (freelance science writer/Nature)
Workgroup 5: Recruitment policies in academia and the valorization of early mobility
Coordinator of the preparatory workgroup
• Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Board, coordinator of the Euroscience workgroup “Future
of Young Scientists”)
Rapporteur of the workgroup
• Renzo Rubele (Eurodoc Vice President; Universita' degli Studi di Salerno)
Other members of the workgroup
• Gadi Rothenberg (MCFA; University of Amsterdam)
• Magda Lola (Secretary General MCFA; CERN Human Resources Division)
• Liviu Ornea (Association “Ad Astra”, Romania)
• Elke Völmicke (Secretariat of the German Science Council - Geschäftsstelle des
Wissenschaftsrats)
Workgroup 6: Early mobility and the non-academic employment market
Coordinator of the preparatory workgroup
• Benedikt Hoffmann (Euroscience Board)
Rapporteur of the workgroup
• Alex Lewis (former President of Eurodoc, Eurodoc mobility workgroup)
Other members of the workgroup
• Paola di Pietrogiacomo (Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, JRC Sevilla)
• Frank Heemskerk (MCFA; President of the European Association of Research Managers and
Administrators (EARMA))
• Kirstie Urquhart (Science's NextWave Europe)
• Françoise Rojouan (Association Bernard Gregory)
172
Detailed Programme of the three MCFA Events at ESOF2004
MCFA-WAYS Joint Workshop:
Governance of Young Scientists Associations
Friday 27th August, 2004
Room 203
9:30 -11:00
Coordinators
Marta Maczel (Interim president, WAYS)
Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Governing Board & MCFA)
Peter Kerey (Board member, WAYS)
Martin Naef (ETH Zürich)
Maria Harsanyi (Project coordinator, WAYS)
Speakers
• Howard Moore (Director UNESCO-ROSTE): “Making links: towards a global network of young
scientists”
• Martin Naef (ETH Zurich): “What it takes to be a successful organization”
• Peter Kerey (WAYS): “World Academy of Young Scientists: the global network of young
researchers”
Discussants
• Jana Ivanidze (Winner of the EU Contest for Young Scientists)
• Martin Klanjsek (Slovenian Association of Ph.D. Students)
Rapporteur
• Magda Lola (MCFA Administrative Board, Co-ordinator of the MCFA Science Policy Panel)
MCFA Mobility Symposium
Friday 27th August, 2004
Mobility of Early Stage Researchers in Europe
Room 204
9:30 -11:00
Session organised jointly with the European University Association
Coordinators
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc, Coordinator of Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Sandra Bitusikova (European University Association)
Speakers
• Lesley Wilson (Secretary General, European University Association): “Early stage researcher
mobility: the challenges from a university perspective”
• Elfriede Penz (International Marketing and Management, University of Economics and Business
Administration, Vienna): “'Growing Up' in a Big World - Mobility as Career-Builder”
• Lluisa Romanillos Redondo (Head of the Academic Staff Mobility Office, Universitat Politècnica
de Catalunya, Barcelona): “A Mobility Action: easing the transition for visiting researchers”
173
Discussants
• Patricia Arsene (Associate Professor, University Politehnica of Bucharest, and Head of Science
Policy and Scientometrics Department, Executive Agency for Higher Education and Research
Funding, Romania)
• Kaili Kaseorg (Tartu University, Centre of Molecular and Clinical Medicine)
The Situation of Young Researchers in Central and Eastern Europe
Room 204
11:00-12:30
Coordinators
Piotr Swiatek (ESF Cost Office Brussels)
Snezana Krstic (University of Belgrade/ Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Introduction
• Jerzy Langer (Polish Academy of Sciences, member of the European Research Advisory Board
EURAB)
Speakers
• Crina Cismas (Project Manager, Association “Ad Astra”, Romania): “Young researchers in
Romania - survival and hope”
• Marie-Claude Roland (Coordinator of Young Researchers' Training Programme, Institut National
de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris): “Rethinking the training of young researchers”
• Irena Kuzmanoska (Specialist in Education Issues/Consultant, Macedonia): “Exploitation of
academic capital - researchers and the 'Spillover Effect'“
• Christina Vidinova (Military Medical Academy Sofia, MCFA Advisory Board): “Young women
researchers in Bulgaria - why is it so difficult to develop their talents?”
Mobility beyond Europe: Mobility seen in a Global Context
Rooms 203 & 204
14:45 -16:15
Coordinators
Fiona Wood (ARMS - Australasian Research Management Society)
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
Speakers
• Fiona Wood (ARMS - Australasian Research Management Society): “Attraction and retention of
skilled scientists, engineers and technologists: an Australian perspective”
• Sami Mahroum (Department of Technology Policy, Systems Research GmbH, Austrian Research
Centres): “International policies of brain gain”
• Ma Li (Linköping University, Interim chairperson of the JSPS Alumni Club in Sweden,): “Read
thousands of books & travel thousands of miles”
Discussants
• Sieglinde Gruber (Policy Officer, European Commission, DG Research)
• Mihail Gabriel Chelu (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston/Texas)
Return and Reintegration of Mobile Researchers
Rooms 203 & 204
16:15 -17:45
Coordinators
Bryony Gill (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe,Leeds University, UK)
174
Jaroslav Mysiak (MCFA Administrative Board)
Speakers
• Bryony Gill (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, Leeds University, UK): “Policies
and Practices in Return Mobility”
• Francesco Pavani (Dipartimento di Scienze della Cognizione e della Formazione, Università degli
Studi di Trento): “Homeward Bound - A scientist's account of managing a return move to Italy”
• Nikolina Sretenova (Department for Philosophy of Science,Institute for Philosophical Research,
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences): “Tackling mobility outflows: actions to improve the situation of
returning scientists in selected Central and Eastern European countries”
Discussants
• Juan de la Figuera (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, President of the National Association of
Ramón y Cajal Researchers in Spain)
• Louise Ackers (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, Leeds University, UK)
MCFA Careers Workshop
Saturday 28th August, 2004
A European employment market for researchers: challenges and opportunities
Room 204
9:30 - 11:00
Coordinators
Magda Lola (MCFA Administrative Board, Co-ordinator of the MCFA Science Policy Panel)
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
Speakers
• Sieglinde Gruber (Policy Officer, European Commission, DG Research): “Some achievements and
new instruments”
• Jerzy Langer (Polish Academy of Sciences, Honorary Vice-President of Euroscience): “Researchers
in the enlarging European Union - EU 15, EU 25 and beyond: everybody gains?”
• Tom Casey (Director of CIRCA Group Europe Ltd, Ireland): “Researchers with attitude”
Discussants
• Sami Mahroum (Department of Technology Policy, Systems Research GmbH, Austrian Research
Centres)
• Alexandra Oltean (CERN/University Politehnica of Bucharest)
Rapporteur
• Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
From slaves to masters - the long and winding road to independence
Room 203
9:30 - 11:00
Coordinators
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc, Coordinator of Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup)
Janet Metcalfe (Director UK Grad programme)
Speakers
• Martin Andler (Directeur du département de mathématiques, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin,
and “Sauvons la Recherche”): “Building a coalition for research: the example of the movement
'Sauvons la Recherche' in France”
175
•
Toni Gabaldón (Eurodoc, Coordinator of Eurodoc's Mobility workgroup): “Supervision vs
independence at the early stages of the research career”
Discussants
• Mihaela Gheorghiu (Project leader, International Center for Biodynamics Bucharest)
• Ma Li (Linköping University, Interim chairperson of the JSPS Alumni Club in Sweden)
Rapporteur
• Janet Metcalfe (Director UK Grad programme)
The role of mentoring and networking for the development of a scientific career
Room 204
11:00 - 12:30
Coordinators
Marta Maczel (Interim President, World Academy of Young Scientists)
Seema Sharma (European Program Director, Science's NextWave)
Speakers
• Frank Gannon (EMBO, Managing Director): “EMBO as an example for networking”
• Dick Van Vlooten (Founder and Owner, Di Cuore Networking Institute, The Netherlands):
“Networking is a waste of time!”
• Marie Wahren-Herlenius (Chairperson of the Junior Faculty Steering Group, Karolinska Institutet):
“Women in Science - does mentoring make a difference? Reflections from an existing scheme at the
Karolinska Institutet”
• Lívia Mészáros (Head of the foreign section of the Hungarian Research Student Association):
“Women in science - does mentoring make a difference?”
Discussant
• Marie-Claude Roland (Coordinator of Young Researchers' Training Programme, Institut National de
la Recherche Agronomique, Paris)
Rapporteur
• Marie-Claude Roland (Coordinator of Young Researchers' Training Programme, Institut National de
la Recherche Agronomique, Paris)
Trends in European career systems - how much flexibility do we need, how much
insecurity can we accept?
Room 203
11:00 - 12:30
Coordinators
Magda Lola (MCFA Administrative Board, Co-ordinator of the MCFA Science Policy Panel)
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
Speakers
• Juan de la Figuera (Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, President of the National Association of
Ramón y Cajal Researchers in Spain): “The 'Ramón y Cajal Programme': towards a tenure track
system in Spain”
• Christoph Bargholtz (Stockholm University, President of SULF - Swedish Association of University
Teachers): “Transparency, quality and legal rights - academic careers in an open society”
• Patricia Arsene (Associate Professor, University Politehnica of Bucharest, and Head of Science
Policy and Scientometrics Department, Executive Agency for Higher Education and Research
Funding, Romania): “Flexibility and insecurity versus cultural heritage in building up scientific
careers”
176
Discussants
• Magda Lola (MCFA Administrative Board, Co-ordinator of the MCFA Science Policy Panel)
• Andrej Mirossay (Safarik University, Ko_ice, Slovak Republic)
Rapporteur
• Fiona Wood (ARMS - Australasian Research Management Society)
“Family life” and “research career” - a contradiction in terms?
Room 204
14:45 - 16:15
Coordinators
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
Maresi Nerad (CIRGE/University of Washington)
Speakers
• Louise Ackers (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, Leeds University, UK): “Living
with science: reconciling work and family life in science careers”
• Ragnhild Sohlberg (Vice President, Norsk Hydro ASA, Norway, and Joint Chair of the EU High
Level Expert Group on Women in Industrial Research (WIR): “Family life and research career - a
contradiction in terms? No, 'Both, thank you!'“
Discussants
• Bryony Gill (Centre for the Study of Law and Policy in Europe, Leeds University, UK)
• Francesco Pavani (Dipartimento di Scienze della Cognizione e della Formazione,
Università degli Studi di Trento)
• Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience Governing Board)
Rapporteur
• Nikolina Sretenova (Department for Philosophy of Science, Institute for Philosophical Research,
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences)
Intersectoral mobility - a one-way street? Myths and reality
Room 203
14:45 - 16:15
Coordinators
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
Marie-Gabrielle Schweighofer (Director of Association Bernard Gregory)
Speakers
• Jens Degett (Head of Communication and Information Unit, European Science Foundation): “A new
paradigm for career paths in science”
• Frank Heemskerk (President of EARMA - European Association of Research Managers and
Administrators): “What is the added value that mobility can give to your career?”
• Marie-Gabrielle Schweighofer (Director of Association Bernard Gregory): “From PhD to
employment (in a company)”
Discussants
• Ivan Montanari (MCFA Administrative Board, Career Development Committee)
• Sanin Hasibovic (Project Coordinator for Bosnia and Herzegovina, South-East Europe Association)
Rapporteur
• Dusan Pestotnik (Marie Curie Research Fellow at Siemens AG, Germany)
177
Plenary session: Reports from the rapporteurs and preliminary conclusions
Room 203 & 204
16:15 - 17:45
The Careers Workshop ended with a common session in which the rapporteurs of the parallel sessions gave
short summeries of what had been said, and preliminary conclusions on the outcome of the sessions were
drawn.
Coordinators
Christine Heller del Riego (Euroscience & MCFA)
Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
Speakers
• Dagmar M. Meyer (MCFA Chair)
• Janet Metcalfe (Director UK Grad programme)
• Marie-Claude Roland (Coordinator of Young Researchers' Training Programme, Institut National de
la Recherche Agronomique, Paris)
• Fiona Wood (ARMS - Australasian Research Management Society)
• Nikolina Sretenova (Department for Philosophy of Science, Institute for Philosophical Research,
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences)
• Dusan Pestotnik (Marie Curie Research Fellow at Siemens AG, Germany)
178