Transformation Through Layering(s)?

The use of English as lingua franca in mainland Europe’s higher education and research sectors has rapidly expanded over the past several decades. Despite these expansions, critics claim that there is a conspicuous absence of European Union (EU) language policy concerned with the use of English as a “contact” language in education and research contexts. This study attempts to assess these claims by conducting a comparative analysis of English as a lingua franca discourse in the policy declarations and communications of two EU actors with remits for higher education and research – the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and the European Research Area (ERA). Using methods that draw on critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics, I compiled specialised corpora consisting of the policy documents published by the EHEA and the ERA over the past twenty years. I then used the corpus analysis tool Sketch Engine and a reference corpus of general EU discourse to assess how often and in what ways language policy was considered. The analysis reveals intra-institutional conflicts in how language is conceptualised between policy actors and across policy portfolios in the EU. The findings also confirm the absence of explicit discourse on the use of English in academic and research contexts over the institutional lifetimes of two actors with remits for these sectors. The study highlights the persistence of a “top-down/bottom-up” conceptual gap at the heart of EU language policymaking regarding English as a lingua franca in European higher education and research.

Explanations of the failure of integration are a natural preserve of intergovernmentalism. It is not difficult to blame the failure to integrate on recalcitrant states — and they are in fact often largely responsible. This article examines how European institutions can impede deeper integration. It sets out an analytical framework that distinguishes three pathways of institutional resistance to change, and applies the framework to the case of EU research policy. In the face of American scientific and technological superiority, European leaders have long articulated the goal of better research policy co‐ordination. But distinct national research policies persist; no significant supranational integration has taken place. The institutionalization of EU research policy in the framework programme (FP) — a funding stream for researchers alongside much larger national programmes — is part of the reason. Since the 1980s, increasingly large and complex programmes have absorbed the administrative and political energies of the Commission and generated clienteles attached to the status quo. European institutional legacies, and not simply national interests, have undercut efforts to create a ‘European Research Area’ marked by the better co‐ordination and integration of national policies.

Let's face it: The proposal for the sixth European R&D Framework Program by research Commissioner Philippe Busquin[*][1] could have been a lot worse. In fact, if it survives the scrutiny of the Council of Ministers and sails through the European Parliament without too much damage, it will offer substantial benefit for science policy in Europe. These are big ifs, admittedly. For one thing, industry and the business sector do not seem overenthusiastic because they see too much emphasis on basic research. The constituency in the science and engineering community that has become dependent on previous framework programs may feel left out in the cold, and the traditional peddlers of national interest may feel deprived of power to guide the commission in the “right direction.” If the history of the previous programs is any guide, all this may lead to substantial changes in the present proposal during the upcoming wrestling matches between special interest groups. But as it stands, the proposal delivers on the promise of Busquin's vision of a European Research Area (ERA).[†][2] The existing science system in Europe is a collection of jealously guarded national systems, resulting in a lot of waste and undue fragmentation. Europe should spend more public money on science to compete, but it must also use the available financial resources and talent much more effectively than it does now. In formulating the ERA, Busquin demonstrated the urgency of the problem and presented an outline for a solution. The new framework proposal aims to bring this ERA closer to reality. For example, collaboration between national R&D organizations is to be strengthened to overcome the competitive disadvantages of the science system in Europe. The objectives of the Framework Program will thus be reoriented from promoting collaboration among individual scientists to promoting collaboration among research organizations. The ideas are still vague and lack operational specificity, but the opportunity to build on these modest beginnings should be taken up. Collaboration between research councils can take various forms. For example, the European Science Foundation has introduced the EUROCORES mechanism, directed at joint planning and execution of bottom-up research programs.[‡][3] Such concepts should be expanded to include joint planning and investment in research infrastructure. The new plan offers European Union (EU) support for such activities. In doing so, it recognizes the limited ability of the EU's bureaucracy to micromanage programs. Such courageous recognition is a necessary condition for improvement. Industry and commerce should welcome the plan because it is directed at improving the European science system, which will lead to better science and better scientists and engineers. Europe's competitiveness depends on the effective transfer of ideas from generation to commercial application and exploitation in new and existing companies; this transfer in turn depends entirely on the quality of the people we educate and train in our higher education system. Especially in fast-moving areas of science, where the rate of discovery cannot be transmitted in the traditional education chain, it is vital that scientists and engineers have firsthand experience at these new frontiers. Creative and effective application of technology in new products and services must be supported by entrepreneurial skills in recognizing opportunities and marketing products. Science and technology policy, whether at the national or European level, should be directed at creating the conditions to achieve and sustain this dynamic. The present proposal shows that this has been recognized, as it emphasizes the need and promises to support collaboration between science and industry. At the Lisbon summit in March 2000, the EU government leaders requested from the European Commission a proposal for a program that can assist and stimulate the emergence of a creative and entrepreneurial spirit in the European research and innovation system. To achieve that, issues of mobility, patenting, taxation, competition, and collaboration will have to be tackled. Most of these issues are outside the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Research, but the present Framework Program proposal is a step in the right direction. The fate of the proposal in the coming months will be an interesting test of the political commitment to a change in European R&D policy. Let us see what remains by the end of this year. [1]: #fn-1 [2]: #fn-2 [3]: #fn-3

ABSTRACTThis article analyses the history of the European Social Survey (ESS) and its relationship to changes in European research policy, using Bourdieu’s field-analytical approach. It argues that the success of the ESS relied on three interwoven processes that we can understand theoretically in terms of the establishment of homological structures and the formation of conjunctural alliances between the field of European social-scientific research and the field of European policy. The three interwoven processes that I depict are: first, the production of a European field of social research, connected to both European and national scientific institutions; second, the establishment of European Union (EU) institutions and organisations that were able to identify and link up with social researchers; and third, the formation of conjunctural alliances between the two fields (social science and EU research policy) and the appearance of actors able to move capital between them.

Regional cohesion in Europe? An analysis of how EU public RTD support influences the techno-economic regional landscape

Research in the EU: better times to come?

This article presents European Union (EU) research policy as a stable, long-term form of organising international science and technology (S&T) co-operation, and evaluates the prospects for transposing this model to co-operation with non-European countries in the context of sustainable development (SD). The European approach combines scientific objectives with common political, social, economic and environmental aims through a form of partnership based on dynamism, collective decision-making and the distribution of research responsibility. It is argued that the prevailing character of co-operation between Europe and developing countries (DCs), which stresses the transfer of resources, does not adequately recognise the knowledge, capacity for innovation and valuable socio-cultural assets of partners within the developing world. The common objective of sustainable development in an increasingly interdependent world creates opportunities for extending aspects of the European model of S&T co-operation to wider partnerships to build scientific capacity, political stability, economic prosperity and environmental quality in a way that has been demonstrably successful within the European Union itself.

Research council hopes

Hunting scale-free properties in R&D collaboration networks: Self-organization, power-law and policy issues in the European aerospace research area

Europe’s research and technology system is about to change with the introduction of a novel approach, labelled ‘European Research Area’ (ERA). This concept makes an attempt to break with the established mode of governance in Europe and seeks to advance European research collaboration and co-ordinate national research policies.

To improve the quality of life in a modern society it is essential to reduce the distance between basic research and applications, whose crucial roles in shaping today's society prompt us to seek their understanding. Existing studies on this subject, however, have neglected the network character of the interaction between universities and industry. Here we use state-of-the-art network theory methods to analyse this interplay in the so-called Framework Programme (FP)—an initiative which sets out the priorities for the European Union's research and technological development. In particular we study in the 5th FP (FP5) the role played by companies and scientific institutions and how they contribute to enhance the relationship between research and industry. Our approach provides quantitative evidence that while firms are size hierarchically organized, universities and research organizations keep the network from falling into pieces, paving the way for an effective knowledge transfer.

The Sixth Framework Programme (FP6)2002-2006 is the European Unions' main instrument for research funding in Europe. FP6 serves two main strategic objectives: to strengthen the scientific and technological bases of industry and to improve competitiveness and innovation in Europe through the promotion of increased co-operation and improved coordination between relevant actors at all levels. Within FP6, the Network of Excellence (NoE) instrument was developed to strengthen excellence on a particular research topic by tackling the fragmentation of European research. One such NoE, formed in 2004, is CO2GeoNet, which is made up of 13 research organizations from across Europe who have extensive experience and expertise in the study of the geological storage of CO2. The principle goal of this consortium is to contribute to and form a durable integration of research into CO2 geological storage, in the European Research Area, as a means of mitigating anthropogenic mass loading of this greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and ocean, while there is continued use of fossil fuels.

Studying the general conditions in the current European Union (EU) regulative and ethical framework together with a critical analysis of research experiences in various EU countries shows that difficulties, ambiguities or even inconsistencies exist in the way ethical and juridical challenges are being dealt with in transnational research. Diverse domestic implementations of EU regulations or international guidelines may hinder transnational research and bring about inequalities in the level of protection throughout different countries. This chapter presents some forthcoming challenges and proposes steps to solutions, regarding for example communication, secondary use and exchange of data. One major proposition to achieve more consistency in the research conditions nationally and internationally is that an ethics committee at the level of the ‘European research area’ could be envisaged, mainly focusing on transnational research. Analysis and evaluation of different cases in different situations would build up extensive knowledge and experience that may serve as an inspiring starting point for a well informed societal debate. This way, gradually, more consistency in the handling of study proposals and increased transparency in decision making might be reached, lifting the daily practices and the protection of both individual and community interest to a higher level of meeting up with ethical concerns in transnational research.

It has become increasingly evident that a more concerted strategy is necessary to address the human resources needs of the European Research Area (ERA). Such a strategy should establish realistic goals and develop clear methods for their implementation. The present Report addresses the Policy Options that the Expert Group 'Realising a single labour market for researchers' (EG Researchers) has identified in order to ensure more attractive careers for researchers and to progressively eliminate the obstacles hampering their mobility. We have chosen an architectural image in order to highlight the complementary nature of the components of the tetrahedral structure that we have conceived. For each of the proposed four cornerstones we identify the obstacles and hindrances that, in our view, continue to hamper the development of ERA, and provide some 'case studies' in order to illustrate our concerns. We then provide Policy Options, some of which have already been successfully tested and could therefore be generalised almost immediately, others could be implemented progressively. The recommendations in this report are addressed to all bodies in receipt of public funds for research. This is meant to include the funding agencies who disburse funds and those who receive them, in the public and private sector (universities, research centres and companies). All must take individual and collective responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations; in our opinion they will determine whether Europe does indeed become a single labour market for researchers. We believe that the European Commission can take the lead by implementing the recommendations in the Seventh Framework Programme.

9. ERA and the role of networks Stefano Breschi and Franco Malerba Over the last couple of decades, the promotion of consortia between firms, universities, research centres and public agencies has gained centre stage in science and technology poli...