Papers by Florian Holzinger
SN Social Sciences
The notion of junior scientists’ independence has increasingly become relevant in the evaluation ... more The notion of junior scientists’ independence has increasingly become relevant in the evaluation of scientific excellence. In this paper, we deconstruct independence—as an element of excellence—in the context of reviewing a prestigious European Research Grant. Conducting qualitative interviews with this grant’s reviewers, we reveal five different dimensions of how reviewers construct the notion of independence: two dimensions are directly linked to the applicants’ relationship to their supervisors: reviewers were talking about independence as a result of emancipation from the applicants’ (former) supervisor and as a concept that researchers need to negotiate with them. Beyond, three topical dimensions of independence could be identified, referring to originality, networks and mobility. We further show that gender is deeply inscribed into these dimensions, especially when reviewers use their own biographical background for assessing the independence of an early career researcher. The...
Routledge eBooks, Jul 27, 2022
Routledge eBooks, May 12, 2022
The report "Open Access Publishing" contains extensive information from an empirical ev... more The report "Open Access Publishing" contains extensive information from an empirical evaluation of the funding programme with which the DFG has been supporting the gold route of open access since 2010. The study is based on a bibliometric analysis carried out by Forschungszentrum Jülich. An online survey was also conducted among 82 funded and non-funded institutions, which shared both their experiences of funding and assessments of future needs in relation to open access funding from the DFG. The surveys were supplemented by more detailed interviews. This part of the evaluation was carried out by JOANNEUM RESEARCH. Between 2010 and 2016, 45 universities received funding through the programme. During this period, these institutions published almost 12,000 articles through gold open access with the help of the programme (including the universities' own contributions). Most of the funded articles were in the life sciences. The number of articles funded each year rose stea...
The ACT Community Mapping Questionnaire. The main objectives of this online-survey are: to map ac... more The ACT Community Mapping Questionnaire. The main objectives of this online-survey are: to map actors – practitioners and experts – in the EU-28 who are currently active in advancing gender equality in their organisations/departments and to give you the opportunity to <strong>become</strong> <strong>part</strong> of the <strong>ACT Communities of Practice </strong>(Part I of the survey);<br> to <strong>get information about the status quo </strong>of gender equality implementation activities in your organisation and your network of collaborators (Part II of the survey);<br> to <strong>identify the expertise and support you would need </strong>to overcome barriers your organisation faces (Part III of the survey) so that ACT can <strong>develop suitable support </strong>and helpful tools to promote and strengthen existing and future collaborations.
Gender and Precarious Research Careers, 2018
The third ERA goal, integrating the gender dimension in research content, means considering biolo... more The third ERA goal, integrating the gender dimension in research content, means considering biological as well as evolving social and cultural characteristics of both women and men throughout the research process. The results of such consideration are the so-called gendered innovations, capable of identifying gender biases and recognising how they operate in science and technology (European Commission 2014b; Schiebinger & Schraudner 2011). Society benefits from gendered innovations because research becomes more responsive to societal needs, and business gets higher value through new ideas, patents, and enhanced technology (European Commission 2013c). The report Gendered Innovations: How Gender Analysis Contributes to Research (European Commission 2013c) offers concrete case studies and methods of sex and gender analysis. Relevant subjects when developing gendered innovations include, for instance, rethinking research priorities and outcomes, analysing how sex and gender interact, and using participatory research designs. Enabling scientists and engineers to analyse sex and gender criteria in basic and applied research produces excellence in research, policy and practice in the fields of science, health and medicine, and engineering (Ovseiko et al. 2016). The third ERA goal further requires that the gender dimension is integrated in teaching and curricula. A gender-sensitive curriculum addresses the needs of women and girls with regard to how developments in RTDI may constitute a benefit or disadvantage for them. It also addresses the horizontal segregation between males and females in education and the labour market by portraying both groups in non-stereotypical ways and by making science and technology classes more attractive to girls and women (UN Women 2011, 5, 8). 1.3.4. The EFFORTI Intervention Logic As seen in Figure 1, the Intervention Logic Model considers inputs, throughputs, and outputs, as well as results and impacts of the former two, and does so by differentiating between three levels (team, organisation, country). The Intervention Logic Model goes beyond the state of the art in evaluating GE initiatives by also focusing on outputs or effects related to RTDI. More specifically, the model aims at providing both theory and tools for analysing how GE-related measures contribute to the achievement of the three main objectives stated in the model below (more women in research and development (R&D), women in leadership, and integrating the gender dimension in research). The model also aims at showing how, once achieved, these objectives or effects can further affect desired RTDI effects, such as the number of patents and number of publications and citations, but also new RTDI effects, such as providing answers to grand challenges and further promoting RRI. Additionally, the model includes three levels, i.e. team level (research quality, productivity, innovative outputs, and other RRI effects), organisational/institutional level (workplace quality, recruitment capacity, efficiency, RRI orientation, competitiveness), and country/system/policy level (intensity, productivity, ERA orientation, etc.). However, some measures will most likely overlap between different levels, which will be taken into account in the development of the toolbox.
Evaluation and program planning, 2020
PURPOSE This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender... more PURPOSE This article starts from the assumption that it is important for the evaluation of gender equality interventions in RTDI (Research, Technology Development and Innovation) to consider its context regarding gender equality regime and evaluation culture because this context does influence effects and long term impacts of such activities. It aims to provide key characteristics for the differentiation of gender equality regimes and evaluation regimes to be considered when designing policy interventions or evaluating specific gender equality interventions in RTDI. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH After a literature review of relevant typologies for welfare state and gender equality regimes, it was analysed to which extent the seven EFFORTI countries correspond to certain typologies based on the data basis of the context research performed in the EFFORTI project. For this context research, international/national and qualitative/quantitative data regarding the relevant framework conditio...
Uploads
Papers by Florian Holzinger
In the context of global challenges international STI collaborations are promoted by policy makers and are becoming more common as these challenges cannot be “tackled by one country alone thus increasing scope and scale by working together and by creating large research infrastructures enhances the potential impact of this research”(Boekholt et al. 2009, p. 15). Analysts as well as policy makers are anticipating that the urgency of global challenges will lead to an increasingly collaborative international STI landscape in the near future. This will have an impact on the national and transnational governance of science: national modes of STI governance will have to adapt to newly arising challenges and opportunities of internationalization; and also the modes and structures of governance on the international level will have to change and new structures and institutions will have to develop (see European Commission 2008, p. 78).
One key dimension of (national and) international STI governance is priority setting which is an instrument to steer STI as it defines and selects areas, topics and activities of public intervention and allocation of scarce public resources. Especially in an international context which is characterized by high levels of fragmentation and strong vested interests defining and agreeing on objectives and means of cooperation is a well-known challenge. Priority setting for international STI collaborations to address global challenges has to be understood as a deliberative decision-making process in an international environment which is not only focused on the identification of “right” priorities but it also has to deal with obstacles and challenges of negotiations and decision-making in a global governance context. Although priority setting is a key governance dimension the OECD concludes in a recent publication on priority setting for public research that no standard approach and only a few principles have yet been established (OECD 2010, p. 9).
2. Approach
Therefore the aim of this paper is not to identify the ‘right’ priorities for international STI collaborations to address global challenges but rather to discuss key issues of priority setting processes in global governance contexts. It asks how already existing forms of international STI collaborations are dealing with priority setting issues and analyses what challenges and obstacles they are facing. It therefore leads to a better understanding of priority setting processes as well as of respective mechanisms and institutional set ups of these processes.
The Paper builds on research conducted in the context of an OECD project which analysed modes of governance for international STI co-operation to address global challenges. Within this project several case studies of international STI collaboration – like GEO, CGIAR, FACCE JPI, IAEA, IEA etc. - were conducted to explore their governance frameworks. These case studies are based on interviews with experts working for these organizations/institutions/networks and on an analysis of relevant documents. They form the empirical foundation of this research which was complemented by an extensive literature review. To analyse these case studies five different governance dimensions were distinguished of which priority setting was one. The main research questions focused on the identification of challenges and pitfalls of priority setting processes in an international environment, on the main mechanisms to define priorities in international STI collaborations and on the assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. This analysis was contrasted with the results from the literature review. This paper condenses the findings of this research project.
Global challenges share common features and challenges of global public goods as they have non-excludable properties that can potentially affect everyone´s lives. They are global insofar as they cannot “be provided adequately through domestic policy action alone but require international cooperation to be available locally” (Kaul et al. 2003, p. 12). Kaul et al. (1999; 2003) define global public goods therefore as the sum of national public goods plus international cooperation. The governance of these policy actions will have to be based on global, multilayered issue communities which would be best suited to develop concrete ideas and suggestions on how to advance the provision of their specific global public good. This, of course, has important implications for negotiations and decision making processes in respect to issues of inclusion, fairness and democracy (Held and McGrew 2003). To better understand issues of priority setting in international STI collaborations to address global challenges we will embed our analysis of case studies in the framework of the concept of ‘global public goods’.
3. Expected results
The analysis of the case studies reveals that priority setting - although quite differently organized and institutionalized - faces common challenges. Priority setting can involve a broad set of diverse actors like in the case of CGIAR or can be confined to a limited number of specific actors and experts like in the case of FACCE JPI or IAI. Both approaches have their advantages and limitations. Within a limited number of actors defining and selecting priorities is in most cases much more efficient compared to broad involvement. But processes which are involving only a small number of actors are very vulnerable to capture which means that they are very likely not to act in the common interest but generally serve the interests of a rather small and powerful group. On the other hand broad participation enhances the equity and the legitimacy of decisions.
Another important issue is the question of the granularity of selected priorities. In international S&T collaborations like GEO priorities are defined very broadly which means that a wide set of different needs and interests were taken into account. A broad definition offers the advantage that all actors will be able to recognize their own specific interests. This leads to a high legitimacy of these priorities as most or all actors can give their consent. On the other hand there are significant disadvantages to a very general definition. The foremost problem can be seen in the translation or transformation of general priorities into specific programs or actions and in the allocation of resources for these diverse priorities. Instead of providing a focus for resource allocation this results in diffusion.
International STI collaborations like GEO, CGIAR, IEA etc. are involving actors with different STI capacities and resources. These differences are hardly taken into account by these governance structures. The case of GEO shows that the selection and implementation of priorities is often guided by the availability of resources. Powerful GEO members which are equipped with sufficient resources and capacities are influence priority setting process by providing resources and capacities for implementing priorities which are in line with their own specific interests.
4. Conclusions and potential policy implications
Our analyses of priority setting processes and of the available literature shows clearly that different modes of governance do not take into account the different capacities and resources of involved actors and stakeholders. This is especially important for international STI collaboration to address global challenges. It is therefore important that mechanisms will be established to facilitate broad participation by different actors and stakeholders. This helps to avoid the risk of capture and of possible bias in the selection of priorities. Moreover, a combination of different approaches like top-down or bottom up, supply-led and demand-informed can lead to more balanced outcomes of priority setting exercises. Due process mechanisms and formal regulations of processes and procedures are a prerequisite for broad participation and inclusion of stakeholders and also counter unequal distribution of power and resources between stakeholders.
5. Literature
Boekholt, P. et al. (2009), Drivers of International collaboration in research: Final report, Brussels
European Commission (2008), Opening to the world: International cooperation in Science and Technology, Brussels.
Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2003), Political Globalization: Trends and Choices, in: Kaul, I.; Conceicao, P.; Goulven, K. Le; Mendoza, R. (Hg.), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization, New York, NY, p. 185–199
Kaul, I., Conceicao, P. and Goulven, K. Le, et al. (Hg.) (2003), Providing global public goods: Managing globalization, New York, NY.
Kaul, I., Grunberg, I. and Stern, M. (Hg.) (1999), Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, New York
OECD (2010), Priority Setting for Public Research: Challenges and Opportunities, Paris