Assessing Research Integration: Testing a conceptual framework using PRIME as an example

ELINKEINOELÄMÄN TUTKIMUSLAITOSTHE RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF THE FINNISH ECONOMY

Assessing Research Integration: Testing a conceptual framework using PRIME as an example

Terttu Luukkonen and Maria NedevaConference: How Does Research Integration Work?17 June, 2008Brussels, Marriot Hotel


Contents

• What are our assumptions about integration in research?

• What are their implications for the empirical study of integration in PRIME?

• Findings from the study of the PRIME Network of Excellence

• Conclusions


Assumptions about integration

• What is integration?• Level of cohesion and its measurement• Integrative mechanisms as catalysts for

integration• Expectations of utility in exchange

relationships


What is integration?

• Integration is largely the process of forming an entity from constituent parts

• Where groups are concerned increasing the level of integration actually means increasing the level of cohesiveness within the group

• The level of cohesiveness is likely to increase if expectations of utility prevail in the group

• ‘Patterns of relationships’ or social structure and their analytical importance


Level of cohesion and its measurement

• Relationships and interactions as a feature of the entity

• Relationships are founded on exchange• Levels of cohesion are measured by the

strength of interactions within the entity• In network analysis the density of the

network is used as a measure of cohesion


Integrative mechanisms as catalysts for integration

• Integrative mechanisms are what brings and keeps an entity together

• Entities vary immensely and so do specific integrative mechanisms

• Integrative mechanisms in the context of research


Expectations of utility in exchange relationships

• For integration to occur and persist actors ought to have mutually compatible expectations of utility

• Failure to integrate means either that the expectations of utility are incompatible or that the integrative mechanism is inappropriate


What are the implications for the empirical study of integration in PRIME?

• Integration in the area of PRIME: – At the level of epistemic community:

• New entity would be an epistemic community clustering around a more coherent body of knowledge

– At organisational level: • Integration would imply a level of alignment in

terms of management practices, shared research strategies, common and compatible training practices and movement of people


Implications for PRIME

• Level of cohesion and its measurement: – Strength of interactions within the entity (the density

of the network)• Integrative mechanisms:

– Funding for research projects, training and PhD circulation, indicators, databases

• Expectations of utility in exchange relationships:– New knowledge, new competencies, researchers

entering new research areas


Findings from the study of the PRIME Network of ExcellenceData sources

• Survey with PRIME individual participants and member institutes (Heads of Lab) at the end of 2004 and 2007– 2007 a separate survey with PhD students

• Interviews with the Heads of PRIME member labs (institutes) in 2004 and 2007

• Management information on PRIME funded projects and activities

• Reports of PRIME projects


Level of cohesion: Networks: methodological points

• The collaboration matrices use participation data in PRIME funded projects

• These have been weighted: 1-4 to indicate degree or intensity of collaboration:– Weight 4 was given to research projects involving

most intensive collaboration– Weight 1 to activities such as organisation of

workshops or winter and summer schools– OBS! no weighting given to just attendance in

workshops or winter and summer schools or other indications of chance meetings


Labs, 2004


Labs, 2007


Networks among Labs (=institutes)

• Network density at the institute level increased significantly during PRIME (from 0.18 to 0.45)

• Core of institutes developed• Bridging institutes• Practically all PRIME member institutes

became part of the network


Individuals, 2004, threshold at least 4 links


Andersen.MAndresani.G

Avenel.E

Barre.R

Bashung.LBenninghoff.M Bertoni.FBonaccorsi.A

Bordons.MBraun.D

Cardoso.M

Caridi.D

Carraro.C Chataway.JChevaillier.T

Christensen.J F

Clarysse.B

Colombo.M

Corolleur.F

Cottereau.P

Cruz-Castro.L

Csizmazia..GDaraio.C

Dinges.M

Edler.J

Ekeland.A

Enders.J

Esterle.L

Favier.AV

Ferlie.E

Fernandez.de.Lucio.I

Filippini.M

Filliatreau.G

Fontes.M

Frenkel.A

García-Aracil.A

Getz.D

Giannangeli.S

Gomez.I

Grid.T

Grilli.LGutiérrez.Gracia.A

Hauptman.A

Heinze.THenriques.L

Inzelt.A

J ongbloed.B

Joss.S

Kahane.B

Kaiser.F

Kaloudis.A

Kuhlmann.S

Laranja.M

Laredo.P

Legenvre.H

Lepori.B

Leresche.J -P

Lockett.A

Luukkonen.T

Ma.S

Mangematin.V

Marian.M

Musselin.CMusso.P

Mustar.P

Nas.SO

Nedeva.MPalmberg.C

Papponetti.V

Paradeise.C

Paul.J -J

Peled.D

Pereira.TS

Perellon.J F

Petit.P

Pierotti.F

Pinelli.D

Piva.E

Poti.B

Probst.C

Quéré.M

Raban.YReale.E

Rieu.C

Rip.A

Ritzen.J

Robinson.D

Rocchi.M

Rosa.MJ

Rosiello.A

Rotem.A

Sanchez.P

Sanz-Menendez.L

Sarrico.C

Schmoch.U

Schoen.A

Shraran.Y

Simar.LSlipersæter.SO

Stine.G

Tait.J

Teixeira.P

Teubal.M

Theves.J

Westerheijden.D

Williams.R

Wright.M

Zitt.M

Individuals, 2007, threshold 4 links


Networks among individuals

• Network density increased, although less sharply than among the institutes (0.28 to 0.35)

• Network components not bridged in 2004, were powerfully bridged by 2007 indicating both cognitive and social integration

• Funding for networking was ongoing at the time of the analysis


Integrative mechanisms in PRIME:1. Funding for research projects

• Most projects were exploratory by nature and this enabled processes of:– Reframing the research questions of the

field– Making epistemic shifts– People moving to new cognitive areas– High impact on reshaping the research

agenda of the research field


2. Training and PhD circulation

• Progress in terms of labs sending their post-graduate students for shorter and longer visits to other labs

• Common training in PhD winter and summer schools, and conferences– students questioned epistemic assumptions more

often than other PRIME researchers (52% vs. 23%)• Creation of joint Master programmes was

faced with administrative and governance hindrances


3. Indicators

• Some, but less than expected, progress in harmonisation of classifications and establishment of common nomenclatures

• However, the creation of a European indicator platform for the design of new indicators in higher education provides one of the preconditions for continued, though perhaps slowly progressing integration

• A less effective integrative mechanism because of the nature of the field


4. Databases

• Shared use of databases was limited to particular projects and the life-time of projects

• Little progress in joint use in general• Administrative and governance

hindrances• A less effective integrative mechanism

because of the nature of the field


Conclusions:Preconditions for continued integration

• First indications of integrative steps towards the development of an entity (epistemic community):– Common training and circulation of young people– Clustering around common themes– Questioning of epistemic assumptions, particularly by

young people• Organisations played a less important role

– Management and governance systems provide hindrances– Increased alignment of management, evaluation and other

procedures could facilitate interactions, but is not vital for integrative processes

– Expected utility of alignment not evident for organisations

Documents

Assessing Research Integration: Testing a conceptual framework using PRIME as an example