What kind of resources are you using?
Besides using data found in, for example, Eurostat and Eurobarometer, we are also trying to incorporate what other academic studies have found relevant for our particular case. After all, the literature and studies on innovation are vast.
What are some of the factors which are considered to drive or inhibit innovation?
This depends on how one defines innovation
How do you define innovation then?
According to many innovation scholars there could be two ways of defining innovation. The first one basically focuses on high-tech and scientific innovation, with particular attention to certain companies or strong research groups. Innovation is often defined in this sense as ideas that create (commercial) value. The second may be defined as innovation in a broad sense, and may also look at how society in general innovates, and can include things such as education policy or labour laws, etc. Scholars and policy makers in general focus on the first definition, but in the case of MIRRIS, it is useful to take into consideration both scopes.
But to answer your previous question, between Coventry University and Aalborg University, with important input from EURADA and META Group among others, we have come up with a set of six themes and associated indicators. This includes: a) participation in R&D under FP7, b) economic and employment, c) scale and intensity of R&D&I activities, d) facilitators of innovation (in a broad sense), and e) other qualitative and contextual data on research and innovation (e.g. Commission recommendations for each Member State). In total, we are dealing with over 30 indicators, and after we have received the final feedback from the rest of the partners, we could decide to include or exclude certain indicators.
Have you already detected some surprising facts or figures or facts and figures which point to some surprising conclusions?
We are learning many things about these countries, and we are finding some interesting figures. But we are at a relatively early stage of the study. However, what is confirmed is that with a few exceptions, there are noticeable differences between the EU15 and the NMS13 regarding factors related to innovation and research participation, in general.
Although we are still at an early stage of the MIRRIS project, are you confident that you will be able to draw up comparable pictures for each of the 13 countries which form the target group?
We understand this is fundamental and are working towards this goal.
It is important to keep in mind that one of the main objectives of these country profiles is to serve to support discussion, not to draw conclusions. The local stakeholders who will take part in the upcoming policy dialogues will make the key contribution to the process.
2) 8 steps for a successful Policy Dialogue
ZSI – Centre for Social Innovation
The aim of the MIRRIS project is to facilitate a Policy Dialogue on widening the participation of researchers from academia and industry in HORIZON 2020 from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
The tangible outcome of the Policy Dialogue should be an action plan with a roadmap and a list of prioritised interventions designed to increase the participation of the above mentioned countries in HORIZON 2020.
To implement a successful Policy Dialogue, the following eight steps have to be taken: