SwissCore Synopsis April 2013

European Research, Innovation and Education April 2013 – 2013/04

This edition of the SwissCore Synopsis as well as previous editions are available on our website.

SwissCore - Contact Office for European Research, Innovation and Education

98, rue du Trône in 1050 Brussels • Tel. +32 2 549 09 80 • Fax +32 2 549 09 89

[email protected] • www.swisscore.org

Contents

SEEN FROM BRUSSELS

Women needed for better science and innovation 2

RESEARCH

Cohesion policy brings strong investments in research 3

Dossier: Actions for research infrastructures in Horizon 2020 4

> Publications 5

JRC Annual Report 2012 5

R&I in support of the European Neighbourhood Policy 5

Update on ERC calls for proposals 2014 5

Governance of Galileo from 2014 to 2020 6

Transition to Open Access 6

INNOVATION

Science, Technology and Innovation in the EU 7

EC plans to evaluate the impact of state aid measures 9

> Publications 10

EC consults on proposal for simplifying procedures for mergers 10

EIT ICT Labs publishes Annual Report 2012 10

EC publishes a book of good practices in e-procurement 10

EDUCATION

Migration and school: is there a better model? 11

Consistent assessment and evaluation policies 12

> Publications 14

Rankings gain influence 14

Survey on ICT in education 14

A European MOOC initiative 14

INTRA MUROS

‘Europe - A powerhouse for global science’ 15

‘ERA bottom-up’ 15

How can innovation be successfully fostered? 16

30 April 2013 SwissCore 2

SEEN FROM BRUSSELS

Women needed for better science and innovation

One of the five priorities of the European

Research Area reform agenda published in

July last year is ‘gender equality and gen-

der mainstreaming in research’, i.e. en-

couraging gender diversity to foster sci-

ence excellence. But gender diversity

does not only encourage excellent science,

it also fosters innovation. As highlighted

by Anne Glover, Chief Scientific Advisor to

the President of the European Commission

(EC) at the occasion of a Swiss Innovation

Briefing on ‘Unveiling the Innovation Myth’

(see page 16), combining men’s and

women’s approaches in research supports

innovation. Of course, besides enriching

our scientific environment, equal opportu-

nities for men and women should be an

objective per se and a reality in today’s

society.

In research, this would mean having gen-

der balance at all stages of the scien-

tific career. Yet, as revealed by the latest

edition of the ‘She Figures’ published on 8

April 2013, gender inequalities in science

tend to persist and ‘climbing up the ladder’

equals to ‘loosing women at each step’. In

2010, the proportion of female students

and graduates exceeded that of male stu-

dents. This is confirmed by recent Eurostat

data. However, the trend then inverts: in

2010, women represented 44% of re-

searchers with a PhD at first grade of an

academic career and only 20% of full

professors. The report also points out

that women still struggle to reach decision

making positions, with e.g. ‘just 10 % of

universities headed by women in 2010’.

Looking in terms of disciplines, it is in the

field of science and engineering that the

under-representation of women is most

striking. In 2010, there were only three

countries (Iceland, Bulgaria, Poland)

where the proportion of female scientists

and engineers was at 50% or more. Swit-

zerland stands at the very bottom of the

country ranking, with only 18% of wom-

en in this category.

She Figures 2012 (pdf)

Eurostat data

To sum up, two of the various challenges

highlighted in the report are the lack of

attraction for careers in the field of

science and engineering and the prob-

lem of vertical segregation. The EC is

not inactive in trying to address the ‘at-

traction challenge’. The campaign ‘Sci-

ence: it’s a girl thing’ initiated in June last

year is still running, even if the launch

video was highly controversial. Moreover,

on 25 April, a ‘Girls in ICT Day 2013’ was

organised to encourage girls to consider

careers in the sector of technology. Of

course, breaking stereotypes is even

more important than encouragement cam-

paigns. As highlighted in the She Figures,

stereotypes found e.g. in school manuals

are among others responsible for the fem-

inisation/masculinisation of professions.

Education definitely plays a role in de-

constructing these stereotypes.

Vertical segregation is a more com-

plex issue, since it is often linked to con-

straining barriers faced by researchers

with family responsibilities. The She Fig-

ures reveal that “policies specifically

targeted at women in science are

needed to prevent that motherhood pre-

cludes women from advancing in their

academic careers”. What regards strategic

positions, there have been fierce debates

about fixing quotas to reach a minimal

proportion of women in boards. On 14

November 2012, the EC proposed a di-

rective setting the objective of 40% of

women among non-executive members of

the boards of publicly listed companies.

The proposal is currently being discussed,

sometimes hotly, by EP and Council.

No doubt, the time when women will face

no more obstacles than men to climb up

the ladder has not come yet. Since gender

equality in research is a way to foster ex-

cellent science and innovation, will it fas-

ten the pace of progress? In any case,

Horizon 2020 should play a role in that

respect, since ‘gender equality’ will be

considered a transversal issue that

should be tackled in all funded projects.

30 April 2013 SwissCore 3

RESEARCH

Cohesion policy brings strong investments in research

The European Commission (EC) often

emphasises the importance of linking

cohesion policy with investments in re-

search and innovation. The 2013 strate-

gic report on cohesion policy, released

by the EC on 18 April 2013, provides a

detailed record on the implementation of

programmes falling in this policy area

from 2007 to 2013, with data up to end

2011 for most member states. The co-

hesion policy groups funding under

three programmes, namely the Euro-

pean Regional Development Fund

(ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the

European Social Fund (ESF). The Euro-

pean Union (EU) agreed on a budget of

€347 billion from 2007 to 2013 for all

three funds together.

Direct investments for projects for re-

search and innovation amounted to €53

billion, i.e. 15.4% of the total budget

and is close to the total budget of the

Seventh Framework Programme for Re-

search and Technological Development

(FP7), which is €55 billion for the same

period of time. It is the strongest

field of investment of the cohesion

policy, ahead of environment, roads

and human capital. Around 53’240 re-

search and 16’000 business-centred

projects have been funded. The reports

also says that 53’160 start-ups have

been created over this period. These

investments finally start to pay-off, with

a strong increase since 2010 in re-

search-related employment, reaching

15’600 new jobs by the end of 2011. In

addition to that, the EU cohesion policy

has supported the creation of 167’000

Small and Medium Enterprises

(SME).

The largest investments went to re-

search infrastructures and centres of

competences in a specific technology

(€11 billion), to firms directly linked to

research and innovation (€10 billion), to

actions fostering entrepreneurship and

research in SME (€7.9 billion) and to

research activities in research centres

(€5.8 billion). It is no surprise to read

that most of the investments in research

and innovation under the cohesion policy

went to Poland, the most populated of

the new EU member state. It is, howev-

er, interesting to note that countries

such as Italy, Spain and Germany

follow Poland in that order and also

receive a significant amount of the

budget.

The links between programmes under

the cohesion policy and the future

Framework Programme for Research and

Innovation Horizon 2020 are becoming

increasingly evident, with the EC and

especially the European Parliament call-

ing for stronger synergies between both

policy areas. Return grants, European

Research Area chairs and teaming

and twinning activities are among the

issues discussed. While Switzerland can-

not directly receive funds falling under

the cohesion policy, the country can

benefit of stronger research institutions

and increased partnerships with stake-

holders located in the main beneficiary

countries because of the new research

opportunities it creates and the access

to and the development of a large pool

of high-skilled researchers it allows. As

Anne Glover stated during the Swiss

Innovation Briefing (see page 16): “In-

novation somewhere fosters innovation

everywhere”!

EC Factsheet on research and innovation investments (pdf)

EC Cohesion policy: Strategic report 2013 (pdf)

EC Staff working document (pdf)

30 April 2013 SwissCore 4

Actions for research infrastructures in Horizon 2020

Activities regarding the use, the de-

ployment, the integration and opening

of research infrastructures form an inte-

gral part of the next Framework Pro-

gramme for Research and Innovation

Horizon 2020. Research infrastructures

are defined as “facilities, resources, sys-

tems and related services that are used

by research communities to conduct top

level research in their respective fields”

and therefore also encompass major

scientific equipment or data repositories,

with their associated human resources.

Funding for research infrastructures is

located in the ‘Excellent Science’ pillar of

Horizon 2020 and has a foreseen budget

of around €1.7 billion in total. Activities

in this field will be divided into three

main actions: developing the European

research infrastructures for 2020 and

beyond; fostering the innovation poten-

tial of research infrastructures and their

human capital; reinforcing European

research infrastructure policy and coop-

eration.

The first action does not only provide

funds for the developing, deploying and

operating of research infrastructures

identified by the European Strategic Fo-

rum for Research Infrastructures

(ESFRI) but also seeks to contribute

to the integration and opening of

existing national research infra-

structures as a follow-up to the ‘Inte-

grating Activities’ funded under the Ca-

pacities programme of the Seventh

Framework Programme for Research and

Technological Development (FP7). On

this, the European Commission (EC) has

recently published the results of a public

consultation which aimed at identifying

topics for intervention. The consultation

was opened from 15 July 2012 to 22

October 2012. 547 responses were

submitted to the consultation covering a

wide range of scientific disciplines. Half

of the responses, however, emanated

from the environmental and earth sci-

ences, followed by biological and medi-

cal sciences. The consultation identified

135 research infrastructures that

have high potential for being includ-

ed in Horizon 2020. It has to be point-

ed out that the selected infrastructures

are not listed on the ESFRI roadmap.

The strong focus Horizon 2020 sets

on innovation is also visible in the pro-

grammes for research infrastructures

and is the main component of the sec-

ond action. More particularly, with Hori-

zon 2020 the EC wishes to more effec-

tively link research infrastructures to the

industry. This will be done for example

by using pre-commercial procure-

ments to acquire high-tech scientific

instrumentation or new technologies or

by supporting the integration of the re-

search infrastructure into the regional

innovation system. The action will also

support training activities for the operat-

ing and managing staff of selected re-

search infrastructures. Finally, the last

action tries to enhance synergies be-

tween national and European initiatives

related to research infrastructures and

offers support for running cooperation

and coordination activities for infrastruc-

tures of global scale.

On a side note, during the Competitive-

ness Council meeting on 10 October

2012, the EC has proposed that for pro-

jects involving large research infrastruc-

tures, part of the indirect costs will be

eligible as direct costs and thus fully

reimbursable. How this will be imple-

mented in practice remains to be seen

and is one of the heavily discussed topic

between the European institutions dur-

ing this last negotiation phase of Horizon

2020.

EC Assessment report of the consultation (pdf)

Map of European research infrastructures ERIAB

> RESEARCH

30 April 2013 SwissCore 5

> Publications

JRC Annual Report 2012

On 3 April 2013, the Joint Research Centre (JRC)

of the European Commission (EC) published its

2012 Annual Report which provides an overview of

JRC’s main achievements in 2012 through seven

thematic chapters. The report also includes infor-

mation on newly concluded cooperation agree-

ments with public and private research players

from around the world, facts and figures such as

JRC’s publications, media coverage and expenses,

and an exhaustive list of organised and attended

events throughout the year. Looking back on

2012, European Commissioner for Research, Inno-

vation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn under-

lined the importance of scientific research: “It is

crucial to emphasise the central place of science in

European society. Scientific research needs to

demonstrate its relevance and quality, its contri-

bution to innovation and growth and its potential

to address societal challenges such as climate

change, food and energy security and an ageing

population.” As EC’s in-house science service, the

JRC aims to play a `pivotal role’ in providing tech-

nical and scientific support and advice to European

policymakers.

JRC Annual Report 2012 (pdf)

R&I in support of the European Neighbourhood Policy

On 8 April 2013, the Directorate-General for Re-

search and Innovation (DG RTD) released a book-

let on the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP)

presenting a selection of projects funded within

the Seventh Framework Programme for Research

and Technological Development (FP7) which have

been directly contributing to the achievement of

the Common Knowledge and Innovation Space

(CKIS). The ENP, which covers 16 countries, was

developed in 2004 with the objective of enhancing

cooperation between the enlarged European Union

and its neighbouring countries and thus strengthen

prosperity, stability and security in the region. The

development of CKIS is one of the main priorities

spelled out by the new `ENP Strategy’ dated May

2011. The CKIS is designed to cover policy dia-

logue, national and regional capacity-building,

cooperation in research and innovation, as well as

increased mobility opportunities for students,

researchers and academics. The projects covered

by the mentioned booklet, which pays a special

attention to `Activities of International Coopera-

tion’, are organised in nine thematic chapters. A

short description and a list of all participating or-

ganisations and contact persons are provided for

each project. According to DG RTD, the FP7 partic-

ipation of stakeholders from ENP countries has

been ‘very strong’.

EC DG RTD Booklet (pdf)

Update on ERC calls for proposals 2014

On 18 April 2013, the Scientific Council of the

European Research Council (ERC) announced that

the main ERC calls for proposals within the Sev-

enth Framework Programme for Research and

Technological Development (FP7) are closed. The

next ERC calls shall take place under the next

Framework Programme for Research and Innova-

tion Horizon 2020. According to the indicative

timetable provided by the Scientific Council, the

ERC Work Programme 2014 shall be published

‘late in 2013’. The opening and submission dead-

line for Starting Grants proposals should take

place in the first and second quarter of 2014, as

opposed to Consolidator Grants and Advanced

Grants. Although no final decision has been taken

yet, the Proof of Concept scheme should follow a

normal schedule in 2014, i.e. one call with two

deadlines. Finally, no calls should be made for

Synergy Grants both in 2013 and 2014. In the

light of the current state of play and at this stage

on the calendar, the ERC Scientific Council re-

minded that there is no additional information on

the budget or rules for the next call.

ERC Scientific Council Statement

> RESEARCH

30 April 2013 SwissCore 6

Governance of Galileo from 2014 to 2020

On 17 April 2013, the Committee of Permanent

Representatives (COREPER) approved the com-

promise reached between the Council of the Euro-

pean Union (Council) and the European Parliament

(EP) on the financial and governance framework

for the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay

Service (EGNOS) and Galileo for 2014 to 2020.

The regulation will enter into force once the dis-

cussions on the Multiannual Financial Framework

(MFF), i.e. the budget of the European Union for

2014 to 2020, have been settled. The draft regula-

tion includes a new governance framework that

clearly distinguishes between tasks attributed to

the European Commission, the European Global

Navigation Satellite System Agency and the Euro-

pean Space Agency. The Council foresees €6.3

billion for the completion and deployment of Gali-

leo and the exploitation of both Galileo and

EGNOS.

EU press release (pdf)

Transition to Open Access

On 29 April 2013, Science Europe published its

‘Statement and Principles for the Transition to

Open Access to Scientific Publications’. Science

Europe’s Member Organisations have identified a

list of ten principles that will ensure consistency

and coherence in their efforts towards Open Ac-

cess. It is the first time since the start of the de-

bate on Open Access to scientific publication that

major European Research Funding and Performing

Organisations agree on a common set of principles

to support the transition.

Science Europe statement (pdf)

Science Europe press release (pdf)

30 April 2013 SwissCore 7

INNOVATION

Science, Technology and Innovation in the EU

The European Commission’s (EC) statis-

tical office Eurostat recently published

the 2013 edition of its pocketbook on

Science, Technology and Innovation

(STI) in Europe, which includes rele-

vant indicators that have been selected

to give an overall picture of where Eu-

rope stands in relation to some of its

neighbours and competitors. The report

contains statistics for member states of

the European Union (EU) as well as in

most cases, Switzerland, Iceland, Nor-

way, the United States (US), Japan,

China and South Korea. It looks at the

following areas: government budget or

outlays on research and development

(GBAORD); Research and Development

(R&D) expenditure; R&D personnel;

human resources in science and tech-

nology; innovation; patents; high tech-

nology.

GBAORD are funds allocated to R&D in

central government or federal budgets.

These are not the actual spent funds,

but the allocated budget. The overall

EU GBAORD in 2011 amounted to

€92.3 billion, with Germany, France

and the United Kingdom accounting

for more than half of this amount.

Also in percentage of Gross Domestic

Product (GDP), there were wide dispari-

ties ranging from 1.09% in Finland to

0.15% in Latvia and the EU average

being at 0.73%. Whereas the main ob-

jective in the EU (33.2%), Switzerland

(59.9%) and Japan (36.4%) was ‘gen-

eral advancement of knowledge: R&D

financed from general university funds’,

in the US 57.3% of GBAORD was allo-

cated to ‘defence’.

The Europe 2020 Strategy targets to

achieve R&D expenditure of 3% of the

GDP in the EU. In 2011 the EU

reached an R&D intensity of 2.03%,

which was despite an increase from

2010 well below the figures in Japan

(3.36%), South Korea (2010: 4%),

Switzerland (2009: 3.0%) and the US

(2009: 2.87%), but higher than China

(2009: 1.7%). Overall in the EU, the

majority of R&D was financed by busi-

ness enterprise, with Germany, Finland,

Sweden and Denmark leading the way,

whereas half of R&D expenditure in Cy-

prus, Poland, Romania and Slovakia was

funded by government sources. Manu-

facturing was the sector that accounted

for the highest business enterprise R&D

expenditure, notably in Germany, Slo-

venia, Finland and Sweden, but the

United Kingdom (UK), Ireland, Portugal,

Estonia and Bulgaria saw more than half

of their expenditure go towards services

of the business economy.

In the EU, 1.68% of total employ-

ment was related to R&D activities

(2009) compared to 1.84% in Japan and

1.99% in South Korea. At national Euro-

pean level, the Nordic countries lead the

way with Iceland (3.3%), Finland

(3.27%) and Denmark (3.12%) on the

first three and Sweden and Norway on

fifth and sixth rank, followed by small

countries such as Luxembourg on fourth

place and Austria and Switzerland on

seventh place. Furthermore, in 2011,

Human Resources in Science and Tech-

nology (HRST) accounted for 35.8% of

the total population aged 25-64 years in

the EU, with no country exceeding 50%.

Switzerland leads the ranks with

50% HRST workers, followed by Nor-

way (48.8%) and Sweden (48.3%).

The statistics published in the report on

innovation are based on the Community

Innovation Survey (CIS), which does not

include Switzerland and is based on ac-

tivity between 2008 and 2010. Accord-

ing to the results of the CIS, the high-

est proportion of enterprises with

innovation activity in the EU can be

found in Germany (79.3%), followed

by Luxembourg (68.1%) and Belgium

(60.9%) and the lowest rates are ob-

30 April 2013 SwissCore 8

served in Bulgaria (27.1%) and Poland

(29.9%). The proportion of innovative

enterprises was generally higher in in-

dustry (excluding construction) than

services, which more often undertake

their R&D internally than externally.

Finland had the highest proportion of

enterprises engaged in internal R&D

(79.2%), followed by Slovenia (74.2%)

and France (66.8%), whilst also holding

the first rank for external R&D activities

with 54.9%, followed by Lithuania

(40.7%). A quarter of product and/or

process innovative enterprises in the EU

cooperated with other enterprises, uni-

versities or public research institutes.

Among the EU countries, Germany

submitted the largest number of

patent application to the European

Patent Office (EPO), followed by France

and the UK. In terms of patent applica-

tion per million inhabitants, Sweden

came top (308), pushing Germany from

its throne to the second place (267), but

still not reaching Switzerland (382) or

Liechtenstein (1310). Between 2005 and

2010 the number of patent applications

to the EPO at EU level sank by 0.7% per

year, however increasing at national

level in a majority of EU member states

over the same period. Most countries

showed a specialisation in one sector

accounting for over 20% of patents.

Business enterprises submitted the ma-

jority of patent applications.

The high-tech sector is largely dom-

inated by German enterprises repre-

senting one fifth of the EU turnover,

followed at a distance by France, Ire-

land, the UK and Italy. The same is true

for the distributed value added with

nearly €38 billion coming from Germa-

ny, followed by the UK (€21 billion),

France, Ireland and Italy. Whereas the

UK was the leading EU member state in

high-tech knowledge intensive services,

Germany was the leading exporter of

high-tech products, followed by the

Netherlands and France. The high-tech

trade balance at EU level was negative

in 2011, with shares of intra-EU exports

being higher than extra-EU exports.

Countries with high extra EU-export lev-

els were Sweden, Finland and the UK

(all around 60%) and Malta with 80%.

EUROSTAT press release (pdf)

30 April 2013 SwissCore 9

EC plans to evaluate the impact of state aid measures

In May 2012 the European Commission

(EC) adopted a communication, in which

it suggested a plan for the moderni-

sation of European Union (EU) State

Aid Measures (SAM). The EC has now

moved on to implementing the plan and

is currently in a process of stakeholder

consultation on evaluation proce-

dures for SAM. It has published an

issues paper on 12 April 2013, outlining

different options and the reasoning for

evaluation as well as questions to EU

member states and other stakeholders

regarding the suggestions made. A

stakeholder workshop was held in Brus-

sels on 23 April 2013 to gather some of

the views held by the public.

The aim of modernising SAM is to direct

public funds towards growth-enhancing

initiatives in a more efficient and effec-

tive way, hereby addressing real mar-

ket-failures. In view of the scarcity of

public money, the EC wants to ‘achieve

more with less’. It has therefore pro-

posed to prioritise measures that

have a significant impact on the sin-

gle market, such as larger schemes. At

the same time smaller, local measures

should be simplified. The current state

aid system however, does not look at

the real, measured impact of aid

schemes, but is ex-ante based on pre-

defined criteria. Ex-post reviews or im-

pact evaluation are rarely undertaken,

apart from monitoring the compliance

with the ex-ante rules. The results of an

EC monitoring exercise in 2011/12

identified deficiencies in the imple-

mentation of a significant number of

aid schemes, including a rising number

of Research, Development and Innova-

tion (R&D&I) support programmes.

Hence, the EC suggests evaluations

measures to help assess the overall im-

pact of the aid schemes on the market,

to improve the design of schemes were

necessary and to reduce the need for

lengthy ex-ante assessment.

With the current stakeholder consulta-

tion, the EC wants to learn from the ex-

isting skills and experiences in member

states that have an evaluation scheme

in place. Also the existing systematic

evaluations of EU structural funds could

act as an example, in which the member

states undertake the ex-ante evaluation

and the EC looks measures the ex-post

effects and communicated them widely

and transparently.

The main objectives of evaluation are to

verify that the assumptions underlying

the approval of the scheme ex-ante are

still valid, to assess if the scheme is

achieving the set objectives and to ca-

ter for unforeseeable negative ef-

fects. The EC proposes to focus evalua-

tion procedures on schemes that have a

potentially significant impact and might

pose a risk of large distortions, such as

large or novel schemes and those

that face the possibility of signifi-

cant market, technological or regu-

latory change in the near future. The

suggested evaluations with a clear set of

indicators should be undertaken at a

reasonable time after the introduction of

the schemes, such as 6-12 months in

case of e.g. bank guarantees up to sev-

eral years for e.g. regional schemes.

A minimum set of methodology re-

quirements will be set out by the EC’s

Directorate-General for Competition and

should address relevant questions, such

as the nature of the market failure

and how the scheme addresses it and

the beneficial and distortive effects ex-

pected. For the evaluation data needs

not be collected in order to allow for a

comparison of the realised outcome with

a counterfactual, i.e. a situation that

would have occurred in the absence of

aid. The EC suggests evaluations to be

carried out by a national independ-

ent body, i.e. a body which is inde-

pendent of the granting authority. After

collection of the member states’ and

stakeholders’ views on the identified key

issues the EC will proceed to design

evaluation requirements for SAM.

EC Issues Paper (pdf)

> INNOVATION

30 April 2013 SwissCore 10

> Publications

EC consults on proposal for simplifying procedures for mergers

On 27 March 2013, the European Commission (EC)

launched a public consultation on a proposal to

simplify the procedures under the European Union

(EU) Merger Regulation. The aim is to make EU

merger control more business-friendly. The new

proposal includes an expansion of the scope of the

simplified procedure, which will result in reduced

general burden for businesses. The market share

threshold for treatment under this simplified pro-

cedure for firm mergers competing in the same

market will be raised. Administrative burden will

also be lessened by reducing the amount of infor-

mation required to notify mergers. With this new

regulation, up to 70% of all notified mergers could

be qualified for review under the simplified proce-

dure. Concerned merging companies can expect

important savings, e.g. by cutting lawyers’ fees

and reducing preparatory in-house work. Citizens,

public authorities, organisations, the business

community and other stakeholders are invited to

give their opinion on the proposal until 19 June

2013.

EC press release

EC public consultation

EIT ICT Labs publishes Annual Report 2012

On 26 March 2013, ICT Labs, one of the European

Institute of Innovation and Technology’s (EIT)

three Knowledge and Innovation Communities

(KIC), published its second annual report. EIT ICT

Labs’ mission is to drive European leadership in

ICT innovation for economic growth and quality of

life. Under the motto ‘Invest for Impact’, the re-

sults of this KIC were growing in terms of quantity,

quality and impact during the year 2012. Research

activities focused especially on technology matura-

tion and experimentation. Business development

activities scaled up, amongst others, through the

deployment of dedicated teams and new education

possibilities in the relevant field have been built

up. Relationships with national and European or-

ganisations have been intensified. One of the im-

portant achievements in 2012 was the conclusion

of a cooperation agreement between EIT ICT Labs

and a set of partner universities defining the ‘EIT

ICT Labs Doctoral School for ICT Innovation’. The

aim is to bring together partners in education,

research and business. The official opening took

place one day after the publication of the annual

report, on 27 March 2013.

Annual report

Manifestation of EIT ICT Labs Doctoral School

EC publishes a book of good practices in e-procurement

On 9 April 2013, the European Commission pub-

lished the ‘Golden Book of e-Procurement practic-

es’ which presents 24 best practices of different e-

procurement systems in Europe. There are around

300 e-procurement systems in use all over Eu-

rope. The great variability makes them difficult to

use for businesses. The lack of cross-border in-

teroperability and the interface complexity are the

biggest barriers in creating an EU-wide e-

Procurement single market. The Golden Book

project started in January 2012 with a first publi-

cation of a draft set of best practices. After that, a

review process was made through a public work-

shop. The feedback from this session was taken up

in the final version. A second project which aims

also to facilitate European e-procurement, is the e-

Tendering expert group (eTEG). eTEG developed a

blueprint of an ideal e-procurement system. Based

on this model, they present recommendations

targeted at simplifying e-procurement. An eTEG

report will be published within the next few weeks.

EC Golden Book of e-Procurement Good Practices

> INNOVATION

30 April 2013 SwissCore 11

EDUCATION

Migration and school: is there a better model?

In 2010, the Programme for Interna-

tional Student Assessment (PISA) of the

Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD) found that

“25.9% of foreign born pupils in Europe

abandoned education or training prema-

turely compared to 13% of pupils born

in the country”. A study on ‘Educational

support to newly arrived migrant chil-

dren’, conducted by the Public Policy and

Management Institute in Lithuania and

released by Directorate-General Educa-

tion and Culture of the European Com-

mission on 11 April 2013, confirms that

this fringe of population indeed has

higher risks to drop out of school

early.

Not all newly arrived migrant children

have equal access to quality education

in Europe, immigrant students overall do

not participate in education to the

same extent as their native peers and,

on average, they do not perform as

well as native students. In a nutshell,

these are the findings of the study. Mi-

grant children are clearly confronted

with inequalities in terms of access,

participation and performance and

can therefore be considered as a disad-

vantaged group. Since teaching migrant

children is becoming a reality in an in-

creasing number of European schools,

the need to compare support models

between different countries and extract

recommendations is real.

The study compares the situation in 15

countries with important recent immi-

gration flows – Austria, Belgium (Dutch-

speaking community), the Czech Repub-

lic, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the

Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the

United Kingdom – along four types of

educational support measures identi-

fied as facilitating the integration of

newly arrived migrant children: linguis-

tic support, academic support (i.e.

other pedagogical and organisational

strategies), outreach and cooperation

(i.e. parental and community involve-

ment) and intercultural education.

The comparative analysis helped identify

five types of education support systems:

the comprehensive support mod-

el (Denmark, Sweden), where all

four measures are well developed

and education systems are in other

ways inclusive;

the non-systematic support mod-

el (Italy, Cyprus, Greece), where the

support provided is random and

fragmented;

the compensatory support model

(Belgium, Austria), where all

measures are quite developed except

academic support, because of early

tracking (choice of educational path-

way at an early age), which often

discriminates migrant children;

the integration model (Ireland),

where linguistic support is not a cen-

tral focus;

the centralised entry support

model (France, Luxembourg), where

centralised reception of migrant chil-

dren and the provision of academic

support are the main driver of edu-

cational inclusion.

In general, the ‘comprehensive support

model’ seems to be best able to respond

to the inequalities in terms of access,

participation and performance. In Den-

mark and Sweden indeed, the univer-

sality of educational support helps to

motivate and keep immigrant children at

school. The study therefore recommends

to pay attention to the overall de-

sign of education support rather than

targeting specific groups. Moreover, the

study points out that free school choice

often reinforces segregation, that late

ability tracking is more favourable to

migrant children, that linguistic support

and interaction with natives is essential,

that rapid integration into mainstream

classes is positive and that schools

30 April 2013 SwissCore 12

should have a certain degree of auton-

omy to adapt to the local needs.

Reducing early school leaving below

10% is one of the five target of the

overarching strategy for sustainable,

smart and inclusive growth Europe

2020. New data on the progress to-

wards this objective were recently pub-

lished by Eurostat as part of the Europe-

an Labour Force Survey: “The share of

young people leaving school early now

stands at 12.8% on average in the Eu-

ropean Union, down from 13.5% in

2011”. Providing the right mix of

support measures for migrant chil-

dren, which are more at risk of dropping

out of school, is clearly an objective that

will help progressing towards the Europe

2020 target on early school leaving.

EC study (pdf)

EUROSTAT data

Consistent assessment and evaluation policies

Over the past years, countries have de-

veloped a wide range of techniques for

student assessment, teacher ap-

praisal and school evaluation. In

most cases however, they are rather

independent from each other and not

implemented in a consistent way. The

international study ‘Synergies for better

learning: an international perspective on

evaluation and assessment’, published

on 11 April 2013 by the Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD), provides a comparative analysis

and policy advise on how evaluation and

assessment arrangements can be em-

bedded within a consistent framework

to improve the quality, equity and

efficiency of school education.

The study builds upon a 3-year review

‘OECD Review on Evaluation and As-

sessment Frameworks for Improving

School Outcomes’ conducted in 25

OECD countries: 17 member states of

the European Union as well as Iceland

Norway, Australia, Canada, Chile, Korea,

Mexico and New Zealand. The study

points out that the state and use of

evaluation and assessment varies

greatly between these countries. For

example, primary education pupils are

not awarded marks in certain countries

(e.g. Denmark), whereas others (e.g.

Italy) rely primarily on numerical marks

for formal reporting. Another example of

divergence is that in some countries

(e.g. United Kingdom) teachers undergo

formal appraisal processes as part of

their performance management while in

others (e.g. Norway), feedback on

teacher performance is provided more

informally in schools. However, com-

mon tendencies and features are to

be observed. First, most countries are

expanding the use of evaluation and

assessment and do not anymore focus

on student assessment only, but also on

external school evaluation and appraisal

of teachers and school leaders. Second,

indicators are rising in importance and

international benchmarking is be-

coming common. Third, evaluation and

assessment results are increasingly

made public and used by parents, gov-

ernment official and the media. Fourth,

there is an increasing need to monitor

the progress of students since educa-

tional standards were set in many

countries.

The observation of these common trends

helped define clear common policy prior-

ities: the various components of as-

sessment and evaluation should be en-

visaged within a coherent frame-

work; evaluation and assessment

should be aligned with the educational

goals; evaluation and assessment

should have an educational value for

students and teachers; a broad range of

30 April 2013 SwissCore 13

techniques to evaluate the performance

of teachers and schools should be used,

in order to avoid that teachers simply

focus on a teaching that will profit their

evaluation; students should be

placed at the centre, they should be

empowered to assess their own pro-

gress; all stakeholders (students, teach-

ers, schools officials, principals) should

be trained for evaluation and assess-

ment activities; flexible approaches to

meet local needs should be allowed; the

designing of evaluation and assessment

frameworks should be based consensus

among all stakeholders.

How can this report be related to the

work of the European Commission in the

field of evaluation and assessment ? In

its communication ‘Rethinking educa-

tion: investing in skills for better socio-

economic outcomes’ published in No-

vember last year, the importance of as-

sessing competences along re-

formed curricula based on learning

outcomes came forward and best prac-

tices from member states on different

assessment models were highlighted.

The communication however did not

address evaluation and assessment ar-

rangements in a holistic way like sug-

gested by the OECD report.

Executive summary (pdf)

OECD report

30 April 2013 SwissCore 14

> Publications

Rankings gain influence

On 12 April 2013, the European University Associ-

ation (EUA) released its second report on ‘Global

University Rankings and their impact’. Two years

after the publication of the first report, the number

of rankings and other transparency tools continue

to increase and multidimensional user-driven rank-

ings, like U-Multirank, seem to be gaining ground.

The report reveals that rankings still mainly focus

on the research function of universities, that disci-

plines like arts, humanities and social sciences

remain underrepresented and that it is recognised

that bibliometric indicators often produce biased

results. Interestingly, despite these criticisms, the

popularity of rankings continues to grow and they

even start to impact public policy, e.g. influencing

the development of immigration policies in some

countries, determining the choice of partner insti-

tutions or the recognition of foreign qualifications.

The report also highlights that universities use

compiled data for benchmarking and strategic

planning purposes and that they are increasingly

aware that rankings are here to stay and can have

a significant impact. In fact, the Centre for Science

and Technology Studies of the University of Leiden

published its Leiden Ranking 2013 on 17 April. The

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)

is, on rank 13, the first European university before

Cambridge University on rank 24.

EUA report (pdf)

Leiden ranking 2013

U-Multirank

Survey on ICT in education

On 19 April 2013, the Directorate-General for

Communications Networks, Content and Technolo-

gy of the European Commission published the

report ‘Survey of schools: ICT in Education’. This

two-year study conducted by the European

Schoolnet focus on the digital competences of

young people and the conditions needed in schools

to improve them. Data have been gathered in 31

countries (no Swiss data) for grades 4, 8 and 11.

The study reveals that since 2006 the ratio ‘stu-

dent-computer’ has significantly increased; how-

ever, 20% of secondary students have never or

almost never used a computer in their school les-

sons. An interesting finding is that teachers use

ICT more for preparation than for teaching in class

and that it is above all their confidence, and not

the infrastructure, which plays a decisive role in

delivering ICT-based learning activities. Therefore,

the report encourages greater investment for

teacher training and the creation of ICT coordina-

tor positions within the schools.

EUN study

A European MOOC initiative

On 25 April 2013, the European Association of

Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) launched

‘OpenupEd’, the first Europe-wide initiative around

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). The initia-

tive enjoys the support of the European Commis-

sion and involves partners – most of them open

universities – from 11 countries: France, Italy,

Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia,

Spain, the United Kingdom, Russia, Turkey and

Israel. At the start, around 40 courses in 12 differ-

ent languages will be available.

OpenupEd

> EDUCATION

30 April 2013 SwissCore 15

INTRA MUROS…

‘Europe - A powerhouse for global science’

As we hold the Secretariat 2012-2013 of

the Informal Group of RTD Liaison Offic-

es (IGLO) until 30 June 2013, SwissCore

organised the IGLO Spring Reception

2013 on 17 April in the Palais des

Académies in Brussels. David Bohmert

welcomed more than 250 participants

and introduced the speakers. First, An-

gela Holzer, Deutsche Forschungsge-

meinschaft (DFG), reported on the find-

ings of the ERA in Action session on

Open Access held earlier that day. Sec-

ond, Fulvio Esposito, Camerino Universi-

ty (UNICAM), elaborated on the conclu-

sions and recommendations of the sec-

ond ERA in Action Session on Mobility.

Finally, David Bohmert interviewed Anne

Glover, Chief Scientific Advisor of the

President of the European Commission,

on ‘Europe - A powerhouse for global

science’, before Anne Glover answered

questions from the audience. This plena-

ry session was followed by a network

reception with drinks and snacks. The

wonderful location and spring weather

allowed for a good participation, atmos-

phere and stunning view on the sunset

above downtown Brussels. The Italian

Secretariat 2013 – 2014 as of 1 July

2013 and all the colleagues from the

member offices look forward to welcom-

ing our guests next year again.

ERA in action sessions

‘ERA bottom-up’

The Swiss National Science Foundation

(SNSF) and SwissCore held their Annual

Event 2013 on 23 April 2013 in Brussels.

Gabriele Gendotti, President of the Foun-

dation Council of the SNSF, welcomed

more than 100 participants and gave the

floor to Roberto Balzaretti, Ambassador of

Switzerland to the European Union. Then,

Martin Vetterli, the President of the Re-

search Council of the SNSF as of 1 January

2013, held his inaugural speech in Brus-

sels on ‘ERA bottom-up’. Based on his ex-

perience as an excellent scientist, Vetterli

focused on the promotion of academic

talents and of academic quality in lesser

performing regions. The reception was

preceded and followed by various visits of

representatives of the Swiss research and

innovation community, notably with a joint

programme in the afternoon featuring Pe-

ter van der Hijden, Policy Officer at the

Directorate General for Research and In-

novation (RTD), on the promotion of aca-

demic talent in Horizon 2020 and Rudolf

Strohmeier, Deputy Director-General

(RTD) for an update on Horizon 2020.

30 April 2013 • SwissCore 16

How can innovation be successfully fostered?

The Swiss Innovation Briefing on ‘Unveil-

ing the Innovation Myth’ co-organised by

the Mission of Switzerland to the European

Union, the Swiss Business Federation

(economiesuisse) and SwissCore on 24

April 2013 in Brussels attempted to find

answers to this question. Jürg Burri, Vice-

Director of the Swiss State Secretariat for

Education, Research and Innovation

(SERI), gave a brief overview of the Swiss

innovation support landscape. Rudolf

Wehrli, President of economiesuisse, pro-

vided the views of the Swiss business as-

sociations and underline them with the

result of a recent study undertaken by

economiesuisse. Walter Steinlin, President

of the Swiss Commission for Technology

and Innovation (CTI), presented the activi-

ties and functioning of CTI, established by

the Swiss federal government. Adrienne

Corboud Fumagalli, Vice-President for In-

novation and Technology Transfer at the

Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne

(EPFL) showed how innovation is fostered

within the EPFL. Andor Bariska, Chief Ex-

ecutive Officer (CEO) at Winterthur In-

struments, showcased the Swiss Innova-

tion policy from the point of view of his

innovative research-intensive start-up

company. Jan-Eric Sundgren, Senior Ex-

pert Adviser to the CEO of Volvo Group,

reacted to the presentations addressing

Swiss Innovation policy from the European

Business point of view. Anne Glover, Chief

Scientific Adviser to the President of the

European Commission, contributed to this

debate by giving the European science

point of view on the fostering of innova-

tion. After these introductions, the speak-

ers exchanged views and debated with the

80 participants in an interactive panel

moderated by Jürg Burri. Before and after

the event ample opportunity was provided

to network and the audience could also

visit the exhibition ‘Innovations for life’ by

the Zurich University of Applied Sciences

(ZHAW).

ZHAW exhibition