Archive

Posts Tagged ‘policymaking’

VERA Focus Group 6 (Barcelona, 16/05/2014)

May 16, 2014 Leave a comment

 

This slideshow highlights key moments of the strategic debate focus group (FG) on strategies and recommendations for the future of European Research Area (ERA) with selected policymaking actors. The FG was part of VERA Work Package 5 activities led by the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) in the framework of the European Commission funded VERA project.

The focus group (FG) was co-organised with IPTS in Spain in order to explore:

  1. Key opportunities and threats of ERA futures for policymaking actors.
  2. Key strategies of policymaking actors vis-à-vis ERA scenarios by 2030.
  3. Key objectives of policymaking actors that should be included in the ERA agenda.
  4. Key strategies of policymaking actors vis-à-vis ERA objectives.
  5. Key recommendations from policymaking actors for ERA-relevant actions today.

This discussion on the possible futures of the European Research Areas and the perspectives and interests of different stakeholders is a crucial input into the debate and policy making process at the European and national level. ERA is a dynamic concept, and it must be thought of as a long term endeavour, considering the implications for and strategies of all stakeholders involved.

VERA Focus Group 5 (Barcelona,15/05/2014)

May 15, 2014 Leave a comment

 

This slideshow highlights key moments of the strategic debate focus group (FG) on strategies and recommendations for the future of European Research Area (ERA) with selected actors involved in ERA-related instruments (ERA-NETs, ERA Chairs, JPIs, etc.). The FG was part of VERA Work Package 5 activities led by the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) in the framework of the European Commission funded VERA project.

The focus group (FG) was co-organised with IPTS in Spain in order to explore:

  1. Key opportunities and threats of ERA futures for ERA-related actors.
  2. Key strategies of ERA-related actors vis-à-vis ERA scenarios by 2030.
  3. Key objectives of ERA-related actors that should be included in the ERA agenda.
  4. Key strategies of ERA-related actors vis-à-vis ERA objectives.
  5. Key recommendations fromERA-related actors for ERA-relevant actions today.

This discussion on the possible futures of the European Research Areas and the perspectives and interests of different stakeholders is a crucial input into the debate and policy making process at the European and national level. ERA is a dynamic concept, and it must be thought of as a long term endeavour, considering the implications for and strategies of all stakeholders involved.

VERA Focus Group 4 (Berlin, 28/04/2014)

April 28, 2014 Leave a comment

 

This slideshow highlights key moments of the strategic debate focus group (FG) on strategies and recommendations for the future of European Research Area (ERA) with selected research funding actors in Europe. The FG was part of VERA Work Package 5 activities led by the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR) in the framework of the European Commission funded VERA project.

The focus group (FG) with research funding actors was co-organised with ISI Fraunhofer in Germany in order to explore:

  1. Key opportunities and threats of ERA futures for research funding actors.
  2. Key strategies of research funding actors vis-à-vis ERA scenarios by 2030.
  3. Key objectives of research funding actors that should be included in the ERA agenda.
  4. Key strategies of research funding actors vis-à-vis ERA objectives.
  5. Key recommendations from research funding actors for ERA-relevant actions today.

This discussion on the possible futures of the European Research Areas and the perspectives and interests of different stakeholders is a crucial input into the debate and policy making process at the European and national level. ERA is a dynamic concept, and it must be thought of as a long term endeavour, considering the implications for and strategies of all stakeholders involved.

VERA Focus Group Methodology (Paris, 07/11/2013)

November 7, 2013 Leave a comment

The VERA Focus Groups (FG) Methodology (aka Strategic Debate 1) is a core pillar of Work Package 5, led by the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR). For this reason, the Manchester team organised an internal workshop with all VERA partners in Paris to pilot the dynamics and relevance of the five tasks involved in the FG Methodology.

EULAKS Policy Workshop at London School of Economics (LSE)

September 23, 2010 Comments off
  • Chair of expert panel on Utilisation of SSH research results for public policy design – The European versus the Latin American experience.
  • Discussant of expert panel on Different dimensions of knowledge society capacity building in Latin America.

As its final event EULAKS project held a policy workshop on September 23-24, 2010 at the London School of Economics (LSE). In the framework of the workshop main results of the analytical work packages of the project were presented to policymakers and targeted groups of stakeholders. The analytical tasks include a review on trends and patterns in the Europe-Latin America co-operation in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), an analysis of the role of SSH for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policy design and implementation, and an analysis of scientific communities and research networks in both regions. Upon the research results policy recommendations for future policies were discussed during the workshop with the aim to support future SSH co-operation between Europe and Latin America. The discussions were enriched by keynotes from international experts on the utilisation of SSH research results for public policy design.

For further information, please visit: http://www.eulaks.eu/policyworkshop.html

For the agenda, please click here

Research Infrastructures Foresight (RIF)

July 7, 2007 Comments off

RIF GuideTo be excellent in science logically requires a wide range of high-quality research infrastructures (RIs). Scientists and managers of RIs have no doubt of this, and in an abstract sense, neither do tax-paying citizens. However, most RIs are expensive, and by definition, are long-term investments. At the same time, the costs of ever more complex RIs are increasing, and the demands for new facilities growing as scientific frontiers continue to broaden. This leaves policymakers in a difficult situation: they are inclined to serve the scientific community, but know that they cannot cover the astronomical costs of ever more complex RIs from the public purse alone. The excitement and promises of new facilities can be high – and yet the costs somehow need to be controlled.

Thus, policy makers face a difficult challenge: while the views of a wide range of stakeholders, with their different and sometimes conflicting interests, need to be taken into account, there is a lot at stake in terms of future scientific capabilities, with consequences for socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable development. Strategic choices have to be made, with significant immediate financial repercussions, and potentially huge long-term implications. While the constraints are severe, opinions might significantly differ, and no evidence exists in a strict sense.

Foresight is definitely not a panacea to address this difficult challenge, but it can assist decision-makers in several ways. For instance, it can reduce technological, economic or social uncertainties by identifying alternative futures and various policy options; it can lead to better informed decisions by bringing together different communities of practice with their complementary knowledge and experiences; and it can build public support by enhancing transparency, and thus improve overall efficiency of public spending.

It is because of this potential that we have developed this Guide on using foresight in the field of research infrastructures. This Guide is not intended to provide specific details on how to manage and facilitate a foresight process – many such guides already exist that can be readily consulted for this purpose. Our aim is to highlight the specific features of running foresight processes in this particular domain. With this in mind, we explore a number of specific challenges faced by scientists, RI managers, and policymakers acting at different levels of governance. To be addressed, many of these challenges require new modes of governance, and a more effective and efficient orchestration of RI policies with broader science, technology and innovation policies.

To download the RIF Guide please click here

 

 

Important Note

If you wish to refer to the RIF Guide, please quote as follows:

Keenan, M. and Popper, R. (2007), Research Infrastructures Foresight (RIF), ForeIntegra, Brussels: European Commission.