Standing on the shoulders of Plato and his school in Academia outside Athens, academies and learned societies (in the following academies) have been created extensively in Europe. The oldest existing one, Accademia dela Crusca, founded in 1582, became the role model for a number of others oriented towards languages, and another one, Die Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (1652), considered the oldest academy of science, has many followers throughout Europe. The European population of academies thus constitutes a network of elite institutions, largely based on the selection of new members by those who already are members. As a result academies and their members live in symbiosis: academies elect distinguished members in order to raise its reputation, and members get reputation by being members. Academies thereby appear to have become important for science policy in general and the selection of experts for science policy decisions in particular. Against this backdrop, the chapter aims at demonstrating the role of academies in policy decisions. For this purpose the chapter will briefly summarize the development of academies over time. This exposition will be followed by an analysis of the characteristics of academies. It will point to the two important roles expressed in mission statements of academies: (1) international collaboration and (2) interaction with society. These roles are played both by individual members and the national academies themselves. However, like many other organizational fields, that of academies has seen the emergence of organizations that organize individual organizations, sometimes labelled meta-organizations. The development of these international organizations will be summarized in a subsequent section, followed by one dealing with the relationship between European academies and society. A final section will present conclusions and discuss their implications for European science policy.
Browse by title
While the making of the European Research Area has caused a lot of debates in recent years, there is still less attention paid to the construction of the European Funding Area. This area is still subject to constant changes in the composition and functional division. Examples are the recent foundation of the European Research Council and the imminent dissolution of the European Science Foundation. For a long time the European Funding Area (EFA) has emerged in an incremental way by widening its scope and adding new actors and interests. It is the question whether the existing order with a multitude of actors (supranational, transnational, national; funding agencies, policy-makers, stakeholders), a complex competence distribution and multiple coordination modes is equipped to contribute in an optimal way to the promotion of optimal conditions for research. Our interest in this chapter is to sketch the coordination mode that has been developed in the EFA. In order to assess the implications for European funding it is nevertheless crucial to analyse the “dynamics” of the EFA. Dynamics indicate the interaction patterns and actor games that develop within the order and help to identify tensions, stable and unstable arrangements, and possible changes the order is subject to. This allows speculating about the future of the EFA. “Structure” and “agency” together define the capacity of the existing coordination order in the EFA to contribute to the long-term aims of the European Union like raising the attractiveness of the research place in Europe, contribute to a highly qualified scientific workforce and improve the innovativeness in the European Research Area.
This chapter presents the concept of the European Research Area (ERA) with particular attention to its evolution during the ten years’ life time of ERA policy. The Treaty of Lisbon mentions the European Research Area, which gives it a strong legal backing and raises this policy area within the mandate of the EU. In effect, ERA stands for the whole of the Union research policy and reflects changes occasioned by the adoption of new issues on the political agenda. One of important changes in the ERA agenda has been a shift from the structuration of European research efforts, ‘policy for science’, towards emphasising the utilisation of science for answering societal challenges, ‘science for policy’. While earlier EU research funding tools were all Community-based, accompanying the increased emphasis on policy coordination, the ERA tools became a mixture of Community-based and intergovernmental tools. The paper also analyses how the question of excellence gained more prominence on ERA agenda as a result of the debate on the establishment of an ERC (European Research Council).
This chapter unpacks the executive governance of the EU’s involvement in science. It revisits three claims about how policy is shaped and implemented: executive governance of European science as particularly technocratic (policy making takes place insulated from political steer); as segmented (policy making conducted within ‘sector-silos’); and as path dependent (institutionalisation of one type of supranational policy approach impedes change and further coordination of EU member states’ policies). Analysis of EU research policy since the turn of the millennium shows that these characteristics are in part still prevalent and can be explained with reference to the organizational structures and sector-specific cultures in EU research policy as well as characteristics of research as a policy area. Yet, in the 2000s political attention has increased, executive path dependency has implied both stability and enabled policy change, and segmentation has been challenged by strong calls for coordination within and between sectors.
Maria Nedeva and Linda Wedlin
In the wake of the twenty-first century, Europe embarked on an ambitious, large-scale project ideologically framed and politically justified by the concept of the European Research Area. This project has not only brought about a new set of policy and governance mechanisms within the EU, but has significantly altered the understanding and functioning of the role of science and science policy at the European level. To understand these far-reaching transformations, this chapter elaborates a framework for understanding the current shift in European science policy and organization, and the dynamics that this change may create in the field of science and research. We describe the current and past transformations of the European science space as a transition between two relatively stable and persistent stages of science support; from what we term an era of ‘science in Europe’ to the development of a coherent space that we term ‘European science’. This transition involves three significant parts: 1) a change in the rationale for supporting research and building research capacity at the European level, 2) changes in the targets for policy intervention, and 3) a transformation of the organizational architectonics of the European science space. We analyse how the transition from ‘Science in Europe’ to ‘European Science’ unfolds along these three dimensions and marks a development that is characterised by increasing the level of commensurability between the European research space and national research spaces. This has serious implications for the complex relationships and interactions between the European level and national research spaces generally and some of their parts in particular.
Laura Cruz-Castro, Koen Jonkers and Luis Sanz-Menéndez
In this chapter we are interested in how public research organizations address internationalisation pressures and Europeanisation dynamics. Whereas internationalisation of research (with a focus on individual research collaboration and, more recently, on researcher mobility) has been widely analysed, we do not know that much about internationalisation processes and strategies at the organizational level of research institutes. And while public research organizations have traditionally been considered as very responsive to national governments’ demands, despite their relevance in terms of public expenditure, no significant efforts have been made to better understand the impact of the European research policy and the emergence of a new space for research on the functioning, structures and strategies of these organizations. A starting point in this chapter is that the conditions under which organizational actors engage and invest resources in international activities are dependent on the structure of the public science system as well as on the organizational features of the public research organizations themselves. In this chapter we will try to build an analytical framework to provide a better understanding of the role of key organizational attributes of public research organizations in the internationalisation process.
Ivar Bleiklie, Gigliola Mathisen Nyhagen, Jürgen Enders and Benedetto Lepori
The aim of the chapter is to analyse the relationship between changing conceptions of knowledge, higher education reform policies and changing university organization in Europe. Empirically and conceptually we draw on comparative research on higher education reforms and their impact on academic systems and institutions the last decades, comprising European data from France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and UK. The chapter is divided into three main sections. The first part discusses how the concept of knowledge has changed in the last couple of decades. In the second part the idea of a changing concept of knowledge is put into a political and social context of rapid growth of higher education and how it relates to major developments in society at large, defined by the emerging knowledge economy and knowledge society. The last and third part analyses the organizational implications for modern university institutions. The chapter questions the idea that the increasing importance of knowledge means that the concept of knowledge is fundamentally changed and that academics have lost power or influence over decisions made by academic institutions. Instead it argues that the concept of knowledge is extended and that while academics have lost influence in some traditional decision arenas, they have gained increasing influence in new arenas that have emerged in recent decades.