EURREP PROJECT: Fertility, reproduction and population change in 21 st Century Europe European Research Council and the Czech Republic Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities workshop, Prague, 14 November 2014 Tomáš Sobotka Wittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital / Vienna Institute of Demography (Austrian Academy of Sciences)
28
Embed
EURREP PROJECT: Fertility, reproduction and population change in 21 st Century Europe European Research Council and the Czech Republic Horizons for Social.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EURREP PROJECT: Fertility, reproduction and population change in 21st
Century Europe
European Research Council and the Czech Republic Horizons for Social Sciences and Humanities workshop, Prague, 14 November 2014
Tomáš SobotkaWittgenstein Centre for Demography and Global Human Capital / Vienna
Institute of Demography (Austrian Academy of Sciences)
My CV in a nutshell
Education
•BA+ MA: Demography & Social Demography, Charles University, Prague
•PhD: University of Groningen (NL), PhD thesis 2004
Employment
•Vienna Institute of Demography, Austrian Academy of Sciences (2004+)
Selected career steps
•Repeated research stays at MPI for Demographic Research (Rostock)
•Managing editor, Vienna Yearbook of Population Research 2005-10
•Research group leader (Comparative European Demography), 2013+
•ERC grant awarded 2011
•2010+: developing open-access research databases pertaining to fertility
My research interests
Mostly demography, but also an intersection with sociology, medical research / biodemography, economics
•Low fertility and family change, European and global perspective
•Shift of parenthood to advanced reproductive ages and its consequences
•Fertility measurement
•Population change in Central and Eastern Europe
•Evolution of fertility intentions and ideals
•Demographic analysis of assisted reproduction
•Childlessness
Publication record
•>2000 cites in Google Scholar (> 500 at the time of the ERC proposal)
•Papers in leading demographic journals, also medical and sociological journals
My ERC project
EURREP project: brief introduction
Timeline
•Submission November 2010, Interview in Brussels April 2011
•Awarded July 2011
•Start February 2012; planned completion January 2017
•Mid-term report September 2014
Project & team info, publications etc: www.eurrep.org
Budget: 1.27 mill. EUR
Key research areas
Theme 1: Advancing fertility research in contemporary Europe
Theme 2: Aggregate patterns and developments of fertility intentions
Theme 3: Fertility, migration and population change
Theme 4: Expanding and sustaining new data infrastructure
EURREP project: brief introduction (2)
Outreach•Key part of the project, although not the key ERC criterion
•Communication of the main results & outcomes
•Diverse target audience: other researchers, policy-makers, journalists, interested public
Main communication channels
•Project website, including news, publications and selected presentations
•Scientific publications (almost all open access, available upon request)
•EURREP Research Brief: newsletter highlighting key research results
•Conferences, symposia, incl. those with policy-makers (UNFPA, EC…)
•European Fertility Data Sheet (2015)
•A book on European population changes and futures (2017)
•Launching of the Cohort Fertility and Education (CFE) database; development of two other research databases
Project team & team coordination
•The PI fully in charge in selecting her/his team!
•PI+5: Three team members already envisioned in the early stage, early communication
•Involvement: 3-4 years
•All hosted at the Vienna Institute of Demography, frequent contact
Tomas SOBOTKA (PI)PhD, University of Groningen (NL)
Project team & team coordination
Eva BEAUJOUANPhD, Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne – INED, Paris
Caroline BERGHAMMERPhD, University of Vienna
Zuzanna BRZOZOWSKAPhD student (Warsaw School of Economics)
Anna MATYSIAKPhD (Warsaw School of Economics)
Krystof ZEMANPhD (Charles University)
Selected results (1): What do men and women in Europe want?
2 kids, typically…
…ideally a boy and a girl….
www.theiiac.com
Selected results (1): Mean ideal family size in Europe, 1979-2012
Two is best: The persistence of two-child family ideals in Europe (T. Sobotka & E. Beaujouan, Population and Development Review 2014)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Mea
n id
eal f
amily
size
(MIF
S)
Maximum
75% (upper quartile)
Mean
25% (Lower quartile)
Minimum
Ireland
BulgariaUK
Finland
Selected results (2): How is labour force participation of women correlated with fertility rates?
thehrjuggler.wordpress.com
Selected results (2): How is labour force participation of women correlated with fertility rates?
A. Matysiak & T. Sobotka (in preparation)
A positive relationship between women’s employment and fertility?
OECD 2011 (Doing better for Families)
Selected results (2): How is labour force participation of women correlated with fertility rates?
Women’s labour participation at age 25-34 and period TFR in 2011, 301 European regions (mostly NUTS2)
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Southern + German-speaking Europe
Central and Eastern Europe
Western and Northern Europe
Data from Eurostat online database (2014)
Novelty, innovative character of the EURREP research
• Focus on education as a key marker of social stratification: Systematic analysis of how reproductive behaviour in Europe & other low-fertility regions stratified by level of education
• Analysing reversals in fertility and their key determinants
• Studying long-term evolution in intended family size and how is it linked to fertility behaviour
• Developing new indicators of population reproduction and fertility
• Lining micro- and macro-level analyses
• Development of new data infrastructure (open-access data available online)
Challenges
Bureaucracy
•Burden of financial reporting and bookkeeping (financial report each 18 months)
•Audits can be strict, especially when irregularities or errors discovered
•Rules can be made more complicated by the host institution
•Need for an excellent admin. staff!
Work & travel records
•Stipulated by ERC rules + rules of the host institution
•Might be unnecessarily complex (lack of trust) and at times obscure
•Travel and work: things you are not supposed to do
•Consider not working 100% on the project: leeway to do “other things” or to participate in other duties
Preparing the project application
Early stage: motivation, institutional support
• Supportive environment at the institute, especially the leadership
• The “culture” of acquiring external finances: “Natural” part of our scientific work
• Experience of the administrative staff with such projects
• Examples of colleagues who were successful in ERC grant application
• Information events & couching (including trial presentations) provided by the Austrian Research Foundation, FWF
Elaboration of the proposal
Scientific part
•Relatively fast, < 1 month
•Some help from the admin. staff (re-reading, catching some typos and inconsistencies)
•Clear ideas how different part relate to each other
•Well developed time / stages planning important!
Do not do?
•Do not try to elaborate all your ideas at once; do not promise too much!
Practicalities
•Rather clear ideas about other researchers involved and their tasks
•Budgeting: great help by the admin. staff, salaries largely determined by wage tables of AT Science Foundation. Most of the budget = wages
Key ingrediences of a successfull application (1)
The PI: scientific record, esteem factor
Very important
•In the first round of applications, his/her past scientific record key
•Ability to publish in the leading journals in the field; also as a first or a solo author
•Relevance/citations of his publications
Important
•Ability to collaborate with international teams & colleagues
•Project & team management: Ability to acquire research grants (also smaller), coordinate research and research activities
• Research independence: The decision not influenced by your titles, function… just merits: Bypassing entrenched rigidities & hierarchy at the host institution
• The grant & the independence that comes with it can kick-start your career
• Negotiating power with your host: ERC grant is sizeable & prestigious: in many countries & institutions, you can negotiate your (and your team’s) salary; also equipment support, rooms etc…
• Reasonably flexible when changes or adjustments needed
• Focus on research & publishing it: No need for extensive reports, deliverables like in large FP7 / HORIZON projects…
Summing up: the obstacles & bottlenecks
Bureaucratic burden
•It’s great to have good, experienced and language-skilled admin. support. Also national contact points / research coordinating agencies helpful
•Time, travel & financial reporting (the burden depends in part on the host institution and on whether clear & consistent rules are in place )
Time use, project planning
•Difficult to participate in the events of your institution when working 100% on ERC grant
Research presented here was funded by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC Grant agreement n° 284238 (EURREP).