Dr. Irena Bačlija Brajnik

Dr. Irena Bačlija Brajnik

REVIEWERS VIEW – summary

1. Experiences from Seventh Framework Programme - FP7, European Research Council – ERC and Lifelong Learning Programme – LLP; Jean Monnet (JM). – what was observed by evaluators.
2. Norway grants (Czech Republic), COST action - what evaluators look for.

1.

a) Seventh Framework Programme - FP7 (51 projects)

criteria:

-Excellence

-Impact

-Quality and Efficiency

b) European Research Council – ERC (4 projects)

criteria:

- Quality of research output

- state-of-the art bibliography

- ground-breaking and creative thinking

- Intellectual capacity and creativity

- Quality of the proposed research project

- Ground-breaking nature of the research

- Potential impact

- Methodology

c)Lifelong Learning Programme – LLP; Jean Monnet (JM) (13 projects)

- Quality of the applicants

- Quality of the methodology and the work programme

- Impact and the relevance of the results

- Innovative character

a)review of 51 projects (Excellence)
Positive review / negative review
Added value of the proposed project:
- upgrading existing models;
- realistically designed;
- focusing on core EU topics;
- themes of high social and political impact in selected countries and in EU in general
Concept and research questions:
- how concepts are structured (systematically and innovative);
- critical perspective of research question or methodology;
- focusing on core EU topics;
- originality of the researched theme;
- clearly defined research questions, based on state-of-the-art literature;
-
Design of the structure of the project:
- multidisciplinarity;
- comparative perspective (especially EU comparison)
- combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies
- substantive literature review
- empirically »rich«
Policy relevancy
(relevance of research for policy)
- Defining the policy context that is vital in Europe;
- The creation of policy recommendations.
Structure of the Consortium:
- The inclusion of important actors in the field (important for access to national data);
- The integration of various European countries
- Well designed and balanced structure: partners expertise and to cover various scientific fields;
- Diversity (involving different countries and diverse social groups / actors). / Project aims :
- project aims are not directly linked to programme aims;
- goals are not specific, are too vague or general (there is no research questions)
Project structure:
-proposal is too complicated, unclear, too many proposed activities.
Rationale:
- goals are not clear and clearly defined;
- inconsistentness between projects' phases.
Interdisciplinarity:
- specifically defined which scientific areas
Bibliography:
- missing or inadequate literature review.
Research project structure:
- Vague and inadequate definition of the research approach;
- Research structure is unclear and often inconsistent.
The European perspective:
- failure to state key European regions, which prevents generalization of results (geographical coverage);
- European context, or European dimension was not specified;
- Unclear definition for applications in the European space;
- Too narrow selection of the problem (does not take into account the factor of a broader geographic, economic and political context).
Impact
+ / -
The expected impact of the project and potential value for the EU is clearly shown
- Includes a "policy" and scientific level;
- Through a variety of sources and dissemination channels: publications, research, case studies, allows identification of good practices and the development of appropriate policies at different levels;
- concrete solutions that deliver tangible results and high innovative character are designed.
Contribution to the production of new knowledge in the field
- In response to social needs and societal challenges;
- Innovative approaches to understand the society;
Dissemination plan and activities:
- Ambitious and innovative structure;
- Identification of key strategic target groups (reach / impact of dissemination activities on different social groups);
- Use of various dissemination channels and tools (website, publications, conferences, seminars, policy report);
- Membership in relevant professional and academic associations;
- The development of practical tools, which will influence the research and policy-making in Europe and beyond;
- Various combinations of traditional and innovative channels of communication;
- Marketing / business potential. / The effects of the project:
- unclear definition; or effects of the project are not directly addressed;
- A vague indication of how implementation will contribute to the expected outcomes;
- Excessive ambition - the risk that the results will not be achieved;
- A vague indication of how the expected results contribute to the development of the EU;
Dissemination strategies:
- Deficient structure of WP, choice / use of tools, target groups, the details of the implementation of workshops, symposia, etc..
- lack the explanation of how the project results will be made available to countries outside the consortium.
-Choice of traditional / conventional dissemination tools (scientific publications, guest lectures, papers, etc.).
-Inadequate integration of dissemination strategies in WP.
Expected results of the plan is too generic.
Range of consortium (integration of the countries) is limited, which may also be a weakness for the wider dissemination of the results.
 Inadequate definition of intellectual property.
b)Principal Investigator - PI
+ / -
strong research background in the field;
support of the research teams
high quality publications
ability of creative and independent thinking;
ability to design and realization of the revolutionary ("groundbreaking") research / Excellent publications
skills and experience in management of (major) research projects
visible achievements in the field
Quality of the proposed project
+ / -
interesting choice of research questions;
addresses relevant issues;
"State of the Art" is well described and demonstrated knowledge / expertise of the applicant;
addresses important challenges;
work can be performed without major risks;
work is thoroughly structured;
use of diverse methods;
proposed approach is attainable. / too narrow objectives definition;
lack of argumentation and description of the methodology;
project is not sufficiently ambitiously designed;
overall design has too little thought out and developed;
broader impact of the results is not achieved;
inadequate definition of methods and approaches (which will be used in research),
c)Quality of the applicants
+ / -
The project / research team:
-appropriate expertise for the successful implementation of the project;
- Well integrated and supported by the institution
- Experience with other (previous) research and teaching projects;
- Highly specialized in the field of EU integrations;
- Various publications in the field of EU related topics.
Previous experience with LLP programs:
- The project is designed on the basis of the experience and knowledge gained from previous projects (analysis of positive and negative elements of previous projects); / /
Quality of the methodology and the work programme
+ / -
Structure of the project:
- A key advantage of the project is the analysis of the situation in the field, then the identification / analysis of shortcomings in the field and then suggestions for improvements;
Methodology:
- The use of approaches that are closer to the target group ("bottom up" approach) - purely descriptive approaches that concentrate on analysis of the institutions and processes of the EU are not desirable.
Dissemination:
- variety of activities and dissemination tools (workshops, manuals, website, newsletter, conferences, etc.).
- Development of new teaching tools and interactive learning materials;
- Innovative use of non-traditional pedagogical tools.
Research plan:
- Specific: includes a clear definition of the methodology, activities, tasks, etc.
- solid research structure (identification of shortcomings in the field);
- Anticipated publication (scientific articles). / /
Impact and the relevance of the results
+ / -
The multiplier effect:
1) a wide range of target groups (academics, young researchers, NGOs, etc.).
2) appropriate composition of the consortium, which provides added value to the project, regional cooperation and knowledge transfer;
3) multi-level impact: effect on an individual, local, regional and European level is clearly defined;
4) the inclusion of informal education.
Effect through the dissemination:
- The definition of short-term and long-term effects
- The use / development of non-traditional teaching and dissemination approaches. /

• Direct / immediate impact is relatively small - due to lack of (by volume) inclusion of the target group.