Evaluation of Austrian Participation in the 4th EU Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration

What the evaluation record tells us about European Union Framework Programme performance

“…The number of FP4 participations by country was very strongly correlated with the number of researchers in the country, implying that a very fair proposal assessment process was operating (Schibany et al, 2001). Only two of nine evaluations that explicitly discussed quality found problems (EC, 2002a;2003b), although most evaluations measure quality rather indirectly.…”

“…Participants prefer national programmes to the FP, but they recognise the need to go to the FP (or an equivalent) where international networking, sociopolitical objectives and exploitation are important to them (ISG, 2001;Schibany et al, 2001;Graversen and Siune, 2001;Niskanen, 2001). This reminds us that not only research performers but also research funders are in competition.…”

“…For the KI, the FP is a source of operating revenue (Schibany et al, 2001). For companies, participation is a means to other ends and they regard the FP as a more marginal source of funding (GOPA Consultants, 2003b).…”

“…Participants' behaviour was changed so that they would be more likely to work in networks than before. In some cases, the European research agenda was said to be changed (Decisia, 2004;Schibany et al, 2001;EC, 2003bEC, , 2003cGuy et al, 2000;Simmonds et al, 2004).…”

“…It seems most likely that the FPs selectively attract and fund those whose interests are in line with the Programme, rather than redirecting researchers from one research path onto another. Schibany et al (2001) point out that large, R&Dcapable companies are 'over-represented' among FP participants, suggesting that the more powerful R&D performers are being brought together by the FPs. According to a German industrialist quoted in the German FP4 Impact study (ISG, 2001) in the FP "the best in Europe find each other".…”