The Effect of Public Funding on Scientific Performance:A Comparison Between China and the EU

Public funding is believed to play an important role in the development of science and technology. However, whether public funding actually helps to increase scientific output (i.e. publications) remains a matter of debate. By analysing a dataset of co-publications between China and the EU and a dataset of joint project collaborations in European Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation (FP7 & H2020), we investigate whether different public funding agencies have different goals in their research policy. Our results support the hypotheses that funded research output represents the intentions of funding sponsors and a high level of public funding does not necessarily lead to high scientific output. Our results show that FP7/H2020 funded projects do not have a positive contribution to the output of joint publications between China and the EU. Interestingly, cooperation in the form of jointly writing proposals to these EU programmes, especially when they are not granted by the European Commission, can contribute significantly to joint scientific publications at a later stage. This applies in particular to cases where funding from China is involved. Our findings highlight the key role that funding agencies play in influencing research performance. While the Chinese government is interested in pursuing a high number of publications, the EU cares more about the social impact and indirect effect, which is hard to measure in the short term

China's absorptive State: research, innovation and the prospects for China-UK collaboration

China's innovation system is advancing so rapidly in multiple directions that the UK needs to develop a more ambitious and tailored strategy, able to maximise opportunities and minimise risks across the diversity of its innovation links to China. For the UK, the choice is not whether to engage more deeply with the Chinese system, but how. This report analyses the policies, prospects and dilemmas for Chinese research and innovation over the next decade. It is designed to inform a more strategic approach to supporting China-UK collaboration

Evaluation of the Academy of Finland

The Research and Innovation Council recommended in 2010 that the Academy of Finland should be evaluated. Following a competitive process, Technopolis and ETLA have undertaken this evaluation. A panel of eminent scientists supported us. Their report appears in this volume as Appendix A. The evaluation has been done in a time when there are pressures for change in the way research is funded, both in Finland and more generally. The importance of several global or ‘grand’ challenges, including climate change, ageing of the population and HIV/AIDS, leads to a questioning of the traditional ‘two pillar’ approach with one agency handling more or less fundamental research and a second funding industrially relevant research and innovation. Thus, at the European level the new Framework Programme Horizon 2020 has separate streams for Excellent Science, Competitive Industries and Tackling Social Challenges. At the Finnish level, the need to fund and coordinate strategic research that tackles social challenges is reflected in the reorganisation of the research institute sector and a proposal to establish a new strategic research fund for them within the Academy. At the same time, there is perceived to be a funding gap between the research funded by the Academy and Tekes’ increasing focus on innovation and entrepreneurship that needs to be filled by strategic and applied research. The Academy of Finland is the main funding body for scientific research in Finland and has played a key role in Finland becoming one of the innovation leaders in Europe in recent years. The objectives of the Academy are - To foster scientific research and its utilisation - To promote international scientific cooperation - To serve as an expert organ in science policy questions - To grant funding for scientific research, researcher training and developing research capabilities - To execute other science policy expert tasks laid down in the Government decree or assigned to it by the Ministry of Education The Academy is in many ways an attractive organisation. Its portfolio of funding instruments meets the expressed needs of the Finnish research community and enables Finnish researchers to explore new research areas of importance. The Academy’s schemes contribute to prestige and career opportunities, stronger internal positions for grant holders within their organisation and improved national visibility. The Academy is considered successful in its mission to finance high-quality scientific research. Its review process is high quality. Academy-funded researchers perform better in bibliometric terms than other Finnish researchers. Researchers are satisfied overall with Academy processes regarding the announcement of the calls, the clarity of the calls and the applications process. Further, they perceive that highly competent and well-respected people run the Academy, which has the trust of the community in general. It intelligently explores ways to improve its processes and operates at a level of good international practice. Last but not least the Academy is in international comparison a very efficient funding agency that imposes only a low level of administrative burden on researchers. The main source of dissatisfaction in the community is the implementation of the Full Economic Cost principle. A concern in the policymaking community is that the Academy does not make best use of its opportunities to provide advice on science policy. Some people would like to see the Academy play a role as a ‘champion’ or lobbyist for science but it cannot credibly do this while it is to offer neutral advice on science policy and while it also needs a budget in order to do its funding work. The Academy has in important respects stayed the same while the world around it has changed – partly because its governance does not encourage change and partly because major change has not been demanded of it. In particular, this leaves the question of how to fund strategic research and research on societal challenges unanswered. The Academy’s strategy is unspecific, both in general and with respect to the international dimension. There is insufficient coordination across the ministries and agencies responsible for research to tackle national needs or to let Finland take strong positions within the pattern of specialisation emerging via the European Research Area. The current period of reflection about strategic research and the state organisations that fund and do research in Finland is therefore an excellent time in which to reconsider the role of the Academy

Congress UPV Proceedings of the 21ST International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators

This is the book of proceedings of the 21st Science and Technology Indicators Conference that took place in València (Spain) from 14th to 16th of September 2016. The conference theme for this year, ‘Peripheries, frontiers and beyond’ aimed to study the development and use of Science, Technology and Innovation indicators in spaces that have not been the focus of current indicator development, for example, in the Global South, or the Social Sciences and Humanities. The exploration to the margins and beyond proposed by the theme has brought to the STI Conference an interesting array of new contributors from a variety of fields and geographies. This year’s conference had a record 382 registered participants from 40 different countries, including 23 European, 9 American, 4 Asia-Pacific, 4 Africa and Near East. About 26% of participants came from outside of Europe. There were also many participants (17%) from organisations outside academia including governments (8%), businesses (5%), foundations (2%) and international organisations (2%). This is particularly important in a field that is practice-oriented. The chapters of the proceedings attest to the breadth of issues discussed. Infrastructure, benchmarking and use of innovation indicators, societal impact and mission oriented-research, mobility and careers, social sciences and the humanities, participation and culture, gender, and altmetrics, among others. We hope that the diversity of this Conference has fostered productive dialogues and synergistic ideas and made a contribution, small as it may be, to the development and use of indicators that, being more inclusive, will foster a more inclusive and fair world

The Chinese Knowledge Diaspora and Diaspora Knowledge Network: Australia and Canada compared

In the context of globalization and the knowledge economy, brains, increasingly mobile, have assumed unprecedented importance, and even more so in the coming decades when the academic profession is ageing. Developed nations like Australia and Canada compete to attract and retain the best and brightest. A related development, advancement in information and communications technology, enables the establishment of powerful cross-boundary research networks. The study builds on previous research in order to understand the Chinese knowledge diaspora in Australian and Canadian universities, and trace their transnational intellectual networks to colleagues in mainland, and other parts of the Chinese intellectual diaspora. A qualitative, grounded theory approach was used for the study. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted for data collection. The data gathering techniques yielded a rich volume of detailed descriptions that were categorized and thematically analyzed. The study investigates the role of the Chinese knowledge diaspora, and the dynamics of the diaspora network with special reference to the factors that both sustain and limit such transnational knowledge networks. The strong sense of cultural/ethnic identity and motivation for closer academic ties were reiterated, as were commonly-expressed sentiments that doing science in the West was a primary source of satisfaction. Substantial accounts of scientific communication and transnational collaboration were highly illustrative. While some had one or two kinds of interaction, most had multiple types of collaboration with China. The influencing factors at personal, institutional, and system level were well documented and categorized. Among the most prominent were the differences of research culture across the two systems. Limitations of this study include small sample size and distribution. Recommendations for future study include increasing the sample size, recruiting indigenous scholars and administrative staff, examining the Chinese knowledge diaspora from both research-intensive and less research-intensive universities in the United States, and investigating further how gender affects both academic being and knowledge networks with the mainland academia of China

Dulling the Cutting Edge: How Patent-Related Policies and Practices Hamper Innovation in China

This study’s statistical analysis shows that patent quality and innovation in China deserve improvement, and an in-depth legal, management science, and economic analysis in the study shows that various patent-related policies and practices actually hamper patent quality and innovation in China. Over 50 recommendations for reform are provided. The study is divided into four chapters, summaries of which are as follows: Chapter 1: Although China became the world leader in quantity of domestically filed patent applications in 2011, the quality of these patents needs improvement. Also, while certain innovation in China is rising, the country’s actual innovation appears overhyped by some sources. Chapter 2: There appears to be an overly heavy focus on government-set quantitative patent targets in China, which can hamper patent quality and innovation. This overemphasis involves over 10 national-level and over 150 municipal/provincial quantitative patent targets, mostly to be met by 2015, which are also linked to performance evaluations for SoEs, Party officials and government ministries, universities and research institutes, and other entities. Chapter 3: China has a wide-range of other policies, many of which are at least partially meant to encourage patents, that can actually discourage quality patents, and highest-quality patents in particular, and innovation. Examples of these policies include a variety of measures with requirements for “indigenous intellectual property rights” that are linked to financial incentives (many of which are unrelated to government procurement); a range of other government-provided financial incentives for patent development (e.g. certain patent filing subsidies); inappropriate inventor remuneration rules; discriminatory standardisation approaches; and a wide range of others. Chapter 4: There are a host of concerns surrounding rules and procedures for patent application review and those for enforcement of patent disputes that can hamper building of quality patents and innovation in China. These include concerns about abuse of patent rights, difficulties invalidating utility models, and a wide range of other issues

Global innovation in emerging economies

Co-published with RoutledgeThis book addresses the context for location of global research and development (R&D) in emerging economies by multinational corporations (MNCs), and the driving forces behind this trend; performance of global R&D by companies from emerging economies; and national and corporate implications of these new trends for innovation systems. The trends have managerial implications for companies and policy implications for the emerging economies where such R&D is performed, as well as for the industrialized home countries of the companies