The latest additions to this webpage:


Some thoughts about keywords for FP9

During the year 2017, the debate about the design of the next Framework Programme has evolved quite rapidly, notably following the presentation of the Interim Evaluation Report for Horizon 2020. At this relatively early phase of the discussion the focus is not yet on detailed contents and concrete figures, but rather on the broad concepts and key objectives for the European Research and Innovation Programme after 2020.
Against this background it seems timely and useful to shed some light at three keywords dominating the current debate:


THINK Piece 3/2017



THINK Piece 4/2017



THINK Piece 5/2017



"Research Europe": Brexit paper is a good start, but moch more is needed


Article in the 14.09.2017 edition of "Research Europe"


THINK Piece 2/2017

Monetary distribution effects of Horizon 2020 – An updated analysis (June 2017)


Following-up on a first analysis for Horizon 2020 (THINK Piece 1/2016), this paper looks at Horizon 2020 in terms of monetary redistribution between Member States for the period from 2014 up to May 2017. The paper is structured in four parts: Part one provides a description of the data used, whereas part two consists of a mainly descriptive overview on the key findings, for reasons of comparability presented in the same format as the previous analysis. The third part presents a closer look on how the “market shares” in FP funding have developed over the recent years for the six largest Member States. The final part presents just four simple conclusions from the analytical findings.


THINK Piece 1/2017

Splendor and misery – Some reflections on the role of Public Consultations in European Research Policy


Public Consultations are an important tool to make the shaping of European policies more transparent and to foster public participation. This paper presents a closer look at the use of Public Consultations for European Research Policy. Despite all good intentions and a remarkable mobilization of respondents from all over Europe, a closer analysis also highlights some important shortfalls of the current practice. The final chapter presents some reflections on how to tackle some of the problems identified and to achieve an adequate interpretation of the responses received.


Presentation at the Conference "Evaluation of Innovations and Innovations in Evaluation" in Vilnius/Lithuania


Presentation at  the EARMA Annual Conference in La Valetta/Malta


"Research Europe": Making Horizon 2020 proposals easier risks creating more work


Article in the 26.01.2017 edition of "Research Europe"


Presentation at the Conference "Interdisciplinary Futures" in Lisbon


THINK Piece 4/2016

Two-stage calls – A real improvement in times of low success rates?


The relatively low success rates for applicants in most parts of Horizon 2020 have been heavily and unanimously criticized by the stakeholders. In response, the European Commission introduced more generally a proposal evaluation in two stages, in order to ease the burden of unsuccessful applicants during the first stage. This approach received a very positive feedback from the scientific communities.


This paper presents a simple model to analyse the likely consequences of such a change and shows that, despite the general enthusiasm about the new approach, the net effects are rather nuanced. To make this approach a success, a very careful implementation will be required.


Article in the 20.10.2016 edition of "Research Europe"