report erc advanced grants

ERC Advanced Investigators Grant Pag. 1

European Research Council’s Grant for Advanced

Investigators in Social and Political Sciences

Roxana Barbulescu European University Institute

April 2011

This report analyses the European Research Council’s Advanced Grant for social and political scientists and evaluates the opportunities for scholars from these disciplines by examining the profile of the successful applicants in terms of 1) country of the host institution, 2) repertoire of publications, but also in terms of 3) discipline within the social sciences and, finally 3) gender. The findings presented here are based on a data set which I have constructed with data from the ERC web site as well as the personal pages of the grantees and their CVs. The study starts with an overview of the ERC grant and the grant for Advanced Investigators and continues with an analysis of the successful candidates in the competition opened to scholars from social sciences and humanities. In continuation, I focus on the panel 2 which is where sociologists and political scientists are eligible. I further compared the profiles of the successful sociologists and the political scientists with the economists and scholars from other social sciences. The last section examines the academic profile of the grantees by gender and asks whether there is a gender divide.

1.The ERC Grant for Advanced Investigators. The European Research Council (henceforth ERC) is a flagship component of the “Ideas Programme of the European Union´s Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) whose long term objective is to “shape and strengthen the European research system” 1. It is the first European body that assumes the mission to financial support and it is designed for “investigator-driven” or “bottom -up research” where scholars, and not politicians are to set the direction of investigation and engage in frontier research. For the years 2007-2013, the programme has been equipped with a budget of 7.5 billion euros. The ERC opens each year two competitions one for starting scholars (ECR Grant for Starting Investigators) and one for advanced scholars (ECR Grant for Advanced Investigators). This report examines the Advanced Investigator Grant competition from the first year it was open 2008 to 2010 (the last AdG awarded). In order to be eligible for the grant, applicants and/or applicant institutions should come from the EU 27 countries or Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Switzerland, Croatia, Israel, Iceland, Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, FR of Macedonia, Norway, Serbia and finally, Turkey. The competition for AgD is divided into three main streams: life sciences, physical sciences and engineering and finally social sciences and humanities. The last one is further divided into 6 panels, each with an individual committee of evaluation:

1http://erc.europa.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=12

I was asked to do this report some years ago. Now, I am making it

available to everyone. Use it as you see fit. There is power in

knowledge.


Panel 1 also labelled SH1 is dedicated to projects dealing with “individuals, institutions and markets”. Even if there is no restriction to the background of the principle investigator, the analysis I have conducted for the successful applicants shows that all grantees in this panel are economists.

Panel 2 also labelled SH2 is dedicated to projects dealing with “institutions, values, beliefs and behaviour”. This is the most heterogeneous panel is terms of the academic background of the principal investigator joining together political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists, political and social theorists but also legal scholars and historians.

Panel 3 also labelled SH3 is dedicated to projects dealing with “environment and society”. Here again the profile of the successful applicants is mixed with grantees from geography, environment and urbanism studies but also architecture and history of architecture.

Panel 4 also labelled SH4 is dedicated to projects dealing with “the human mind and its complexity”. The successful applicants of the panel have a background in psychology, cognitive science and neurology.

Panel 5 also labelled SH5 is dedicated to projects dealing with “cultures and cultural production”. The grantees of this panel have a background in linguistics, philology, cultural studies and history.

Panel 6 also labelled SH6 is dedicated to projects dealing with “the study of the human past” where successful applicants are historians.

Compared with the competition for the AdG for life sciences or physical sciences and engineering, the one for social sciences and humanities is the most competitive with an average success rate below 20 per cent. For example, in 2009, 37 per cent of the applicants to the life science and 46 per cent of those to the physical sciences and engineering competitions received the grant while this was the case only for 17 per cent of the applicants for social sciences. The competitiveness of the stream for the social scientists is partially explained by the fact that there fewer grants made available for these discipline: 44 in 2009 compared with 99 in life sciences and 123 in physical science and engineering.2

1. Advanced Investigators’ grant for social sciences and humanities Over the last three years 144 grants have been awarded for scholars from social sciences and humanities. However, as the graph below shows, the number in the total grants awarded fells from 56 in 2008 (the first year when the AdG is awarded) to 44 in 2009 and 2010. But, Panel 2 which is the panel where sociologists and political scientists are successful is the only panel which expands over time from 8 grants offered in 2008 to 11 in 2010.

2 Statistics AdG 2010 (2011).


In what regards the country of the institution, the universities and research institutes from the UK are most represented holding 29 per cent of the grants awarded so far with France, the Netherlands and Germany in the next places (see table and graph below).

Noteworthy is also the fact that only institutions from 10 European countries have proved competitive and only 6 of them have “won” the grant more than one grant and more than once. Institutions from Finland, Denmark, Norway and Portugal received the grant only once and for only one year.

In the case of Italy, it is important to mention that all 3 grants have been won by EUI professors.

Number of grants per country per year

Country of institution 2008 2009 2010

DK 1

FI 1

FR 2 1 1

UK 4 2 2

DE 1 2

Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 3 Panel 4 Panel 5 Panel 6 Total

2008 14 8 3 12 5 14 56

2009 10 9 3 8 5 9 44

2010 7 11 3 10 4 9 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Awarded grants for social sciences and humanities

DE11%

DK3%

ES7%

FI3%

FR14%

IT11%

NL14%

NO4%

PT4%

UK29%

ECR grants by country of institution


ES 1 1

NL 4

IT 3

NO 1

PT 1

3. Advanced Investigator Grant: evaluation of panel 2 The information is this section is based on date set which I constructed based on the personal web sites of the grantees and their CVs (data set attached to email). Their publication profile is based on a detailed analysis of their peer review articles in international journals (I consider single and multiple authorship). I do not distinguish between articles in special or regular issues. I have also reviewed the number of books published by the grantee - be them single and multiple authors- and separately examined the number of edited books –where the scholar is editor or co-editor. Furthermore, I have analysed the number of book chapters published as an indicator of the overall volume of publications across years as I have not considered the number of articles published in national journals. Finally, I have looked at the number of main (peer reviewed articles+ books) works published in the last 3 years before the awarding of the ERC grant. This means, for instance, that for a grantee of the year 2009 I have only considered publications since 2005-2008. According to the Guide for the Applicants for the Advanced Grant, the principal investigator is expected to demonstrate a track record of “significant research achievements in the last 10 years” which mean that a successful application should meet at least one of the following criteria

“Normally 10 publications as senior author (or in those fields where alphabetic order of authorship is the norm, joint author) in major international peer reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals, and/or in the leading international peer reviewed journals of their respective field

Normally 5 granted patents

Normally 10 invited presentations in well-established internationally organized conferences and advanced schools

Normally 3 research expeditions led by the applicant

Normally 3 well-established international conferences or congresses where the applicant was involved in their organization as a member of the steering and/or organizing committee.

International recognition through scientific prizes/awards or membership in well-regarded academies.” (2010:11-12)

The figure below summarizes the publication profile of the ERC grantees of panel 2. The bares represent the means by type of publication and over the three years. From the first grant awarded in 2008 to 2010, there is a general progressive trend in terms on mean publications across all 5 indicators considered. However, the mean comparison test (Bonfferoni anova method) turned out not to be significant. The only exception is for the increase in the number of books between the 2009 and 2010 which is statistically significant at 5 per cent.


The table below summarizes the publication profile of the grantees in terms of modes across the 5 indicators mentioned.

Publication profile of ERC grantees (modes for all grantees of panel 2)

TYPE NUMBER

international peer-review articles 28

books 4

edited books 4 and 6

books chapters 32

last 3 years 3, 5, 8 and 9

The publication profile of the grantees indicates that fact that they are well established scholars but who have also been extremely productive over the last three years. The overall average of almost 10 publications (consisting in peer reviewed articles and books).

Moreover, all grantees of the panel 2 but also of all the other panels examined have tenured positions.

The grantees also have experience with other research grants. The findings show that overall, grantees have won an average of 15 other research grants before the ERC. The table below lists the average number of previous grants. However, the calculations are based on 7 observations because only few of the grantees have documented their previous grants.

Number of previous research grants awarded (means for panel 2)

2008 2009 2010 overall

mean 11,3 18 17,5 15

number of observations 3 2 2 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

internationalpeer-review

articles

books edited books books chapters last 3 years

Publication profile of ERC grantees (means for panel 2)

2008

2009

2010

overall


4. AgD for Political Scientists3 and Sociologists Given the fact that different disciplines have different publication standards even within the social sciences and humanities, this section takes a closer look at the profiles of the political scientists and sociologists and compares them with those of scholars from other disciplines.

Political scientists and sociologists account for 17 out of 28 of the grantees. Even so, the political scientists outnumber the sociologists (10 to 7).

In terms of country of the institutions 5 out of 10 political scientists and 4 out of 7 sociologists who have won the ERC grant come from British institutions. In other social sciences –anthropology, law, media and communication studies and history the profile is more heterogeneous. See comparative figures below.

3 Political science –refers to all fields of political sciences together with social and political theory

UK, 5

DE, 1

ES, 1

IT, 1

NL, 1NO, 1

ERC grantees in by country of institution. absolute numbers

DE, 1

ES, 1

IT, 1UK, 4

ERC grantees for by country of institution. absolute numbers


In what regards the overall publication profile of the grantees there is a significant variation across disciplines. The figure below represents their average number of publications by field of studies and across the five indicators (articles in international peer reviewed journal, books, edited books, book chapters and main publications – peer reviewed articles plus books - over the last 3 years prior to the grant). In general, all ERC grantees are most productive in terms of peer reviewed articles and book chapters. However, most productive are the sociologists whose average total number of publications of 116,5 publications out of which 31.8 are peer reviewed articles followed by other social sciences with 89 publications out of with 20.4 are peer reviewed articles. Political scientists and economists are slightly less productive with an average total number of publications of 71.6 and 70.4 respectively. Nevertheless it is precisely the least productive, the economists who have most peer reviewed articles with a total average of 45. But it is important to point out the fact that in what concerns the average number of main publications in the last 3 years grantees from all disciplines have nearly the same number of publication 10 (other social sciences with 8.3, political sciences and sociology 10 and economists with 10.3). Similarly, the same finding is further confirmed when looking at the performance of scholars by gender.

DE, 1DK, 1

FI, 1

FR, 4IT, 1

NL, 3

PT, 1UK, 1

ERC grantees in by country of institution. absolute

numbers


23.2

31.8

20.4

45

4.8

14.611.5

2

7.3 5.7

10.8

1.3

26.3

54.4

37.4

11.810 10 8.9 10.3

political science sociology other social sciences economics

Publication profile of ERC grantees by discipline (means)

peer review books edited books books chapters last 3 years

25.3

9

36.1

22.3

5

27.2

49.2

21.5

38.5

25

57.1

political sciences sociology other social sciences economists

Publication profile: peer reviewed articles (means)

2008 2009 2010

5

8.6

1.3

5.34

52.7

4

17.2

21.7

2.6


Publication profile: books (means)

2008 2009 2010


The graphs above summarize the profile of the ERC grantees with reference to their average number of publication. But it is equally useful to also look at the same publication profile and indicate the minimum and maximum number of publications of the investigators across the five

8.69.5

1

5.6

1

4.7

2.2

8 7.3

18.2

0.5


Publication profile: edited books (means)

2008 2009 2010

21.3

34

7.7

23.6

4

25.5

13.7

38

67

52.7

17.6


Publication profile: book chapters (means)

2008 2009 2010

77.7

10.810.3

3

9 9.5

14

11.7

10 9.6


Publication profile over last 3 years

2008 2009 2010


indicators. This is especially important to present because even within the same panel and within the same discipline there is a large variation between the maximum and minimum of publications. The indicator which is the used in above, the mean, is highly sensitive to variance introduced by the minimum and the maximum and therefore, in cases where the interval is large (large difference between maximum and minimum) the average number is significantly affected by the extreme values. For instance, the sociologists awarded have published a minimum number of 4 book chapters but also a maximum of 102. In addition, the minimum number of peer reviewed articles for sociologists is 5 but the maximum number is 75. Likewise, the economists have published a minimum of 12 peer reviewed articles, while the maximum is of 155. Following the sequence above, the first figure summarized the publication profile of the scholars by discipline across the five indicators and the next 5 graphs present in detail the minimum and maximum number of publications across the 3 years.

10

43

111 4

120

57

3

25

5

76

4

30

117

4

102

317

2

52

2

35

0

33

4

61

1

2312

155

012

010

0

85

3

31

min max min max min max min max min max

peer review books edited books books chapters last 3 years

Publication profile of ERC grantees by discipline(minimum and maximum)


16

43

1036

1033

5 523

76

215

4

52

19 2812

65

12

127

19

155

min max min max min max

2008 2009 2010

Publication profile: peer review articles (minimum and maximum)



2

9

1

11

4 44 49

30

2

25

2

10

3

35

05

0

12

05


2008 2009 2010

Publication profile: books (minimum and maximum)


4

12

47 5

11

1 1 2

17

4

22

0

1510

34

0

10

0

9

0 2


2008 2009 2010

Publication profile: editied books(minimum and maximum)


0

32

7

39

19

57

4 4

43

102

18

48

4

47 4461

0

24

2

38

2

85


2008 2009 2010

Publication profile: book chapters(minimum and maximum)



5 AdG for social scientists: is there a gender divide? In the ERC’ AdG stream for social sciences and humanities, women scholars are indeed less represented both at the stage of applications and successful candidates. As the figure below shows, only 21,6 per cent of the applications are filled by women investigators. The situation repeats in the case of the success rate where only 23,4 per cent of the grantees are women. This means that from applicant scientists the probability for women to be awarded the AgD grant is of just 2,96 per cent. The imbalance between men and women scholars is even more accentuated in the other two streams of the AgD with a mere are of success for women 5,7 per cent in physical science and engineering and 9,1 per cent in life sciences in 2010. For the same year, the rate of success was at 20,5 per cent in social sciences in humanities. In order to improve the participation rates of women scientists the Scientific Council of ERC has approved in February this year a Gender Equality Plan (2007-2013) which puts gender mainstreaming at the core of the ERC. In this context, gender mainstreaming means that “each process within the ERC- from creating awareness about the ERC to grant signing is designed to include both genders, giving equal opportunities to men and women”. The figure below plots the evolution of the women scientists participation in terms of submitted applications (includes only valid applications) and share of success for the AdG competition for social sciences and humanities. The data comes from the press report that accompanied the release of the Gender Equality Plan (2011).

4

12

5

13

3

25

3 37

17

59

1

23

4

19

4

23

3

28

3

31


2008 2009 2010

Publication profile: main publication over last 3 years(minimum and maximum)



As we can see, there is a small improvement of women participation of 3 per cent per year in what regards the number of applications filled. However, this trend is not replicated in the case of success rate where there was a rapid increase in 2009 to 31,8 per cent but it dropped again in 2010 to merely 20,5 percent. The next figure summarizes the ERC grantees by gender and by discipline. There is a great variation among disciplines in terms of gender composition with political science and economics with very few women scholars among the grantees (1 out of 10 for political science and 2 out of 31 for economics) while sociology and other social sciences –anthropology, law and history- are more heterogeneous (2 out of 5 for sociology and 7 out of 6 for other social sciences). The first 3 bares represented below refer to grantees of Panel 2 and the forth bar represents grantees of Panel 1.

19.4 17.921.2

31.8

24.6

20.521.623.4

% applications by women share of success for women

AdG for social scientists. Share of women scholars

2008 2009 2010 overall

d

1 26

2

93

7

29


Gender divide for ERC grantees by discipline

women men


However, the publication profile of the women scholars is consistently distinct of that of the men scholars. The table below lists the average number of publications across the five indicators. Overall, women investigators have

a more precarious publication repertoire in number of peer reviewed articles (with the convergent profiles in other social sciences where also women are more represented

a more converging publication profile in what concerns the average number of books, edited books and books chapters.

an extremely similar publication profile in what concerns the main publications over the last three years. Women scientists have an exact profile with the men scientists in sociology and outperform them in other sciences. Irony makes that it is precisely in these fields were women are most represented. The gap remains only in political science but it only refers to one case because only one woman was awarded the grant in this discipline.

Therefore, there is a catching up effect for the women scientists. Furthermore, in my opinion we cannot talk about a gender premium since over the last years ERC grantees men and women have similar profiles.

Publication profile by gender (means)

discipline gender peer review books edited books

book chapters last 3 years

political science men 25,1 5 6,8 27,4 11

women 10 4 11 19 3

sociology men 43,6 13 2,5 67,6 10

women 14 17 9 34,5 10

other social sciences men 24,4 15,1 16,5 45,5 8

women 16,6 7,3 2,8 26 10

References ERC Scientific Council (2009) “ERC: activities & achievement in 2008. Annual Report” 40p. ERC Scientific Council (2010): “Guide for the Applicants for the Advanced Grant” 60p. ERC Scientific Council (2010): “ERC Advanced Grant 2010. Outcome: Indicative statistics” 11p. ERC Scientific Council (2011): “Gender equality plan 2007-2010”4p. ANNEX List of all ERC’s grantees in the panel for social sciences and humanities by institution, country of the institution and year of award

List of AdG grantees

no name institution country year

1 Claudio Radaelli THE UNIVERSITY OF EXETER UK 2008

2 Jo Shaw THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH UK 2008

3 Bo Stråth HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO FI 2008

4 Colin John McInnes ABERYSTWYTH UNIVERSITY UK 2008

5 François COLLART DUTILLEUL UNIVERSITE DE NANTES FR 2008

6 Jan Zielonka UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD UK 2008

7 Didier, Dominique FASSIN ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES FR 2008

8 Kirsten Hastrup KOBENHAVNS UNIVERSITET DK 2008


9 Miriam Anne Glucksmann University Of Essex UK 2009

10 Anne-Marie Mol Universiteit Van Amsterdam NL 2009

11 Patricia Maria Valkenburg Universiteit Van Amsterdam NL 2009

12 Gary Marks Vereniging Voor Christelijk Hoger Onderwijs WETENSCHAPPELIJK ONDERZOEK EN PATIENTENZORG

NL 2009

13 Christoph Konrad Knill Universitat Konstanz DE 2009

14 Engin Isin The Open University UK 2009

15 Peter Andreas Nollkaemper Universiteit Van Amsterdam NL 2009

16 Irene Bellier Ecole Des Hautes Etudes En Sciences SOCIALES FR 2009

17 Peter Wagner Universitat De Barcelona ES 2009

18 BLOSSFELD Hans-Peter Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg DE 2010

19 VERTOVEC Steven Allen Max Planck Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V. DE 2010

20 ESPING-ANDERSEN Gosta Universitat Pompeu Fabra ES 2010

21 LATOUR Bruno Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques FR 2010

22 MICKLITZ-ROESSLER Hans-Wolfgang EUI IT 2010

23 DELLA PORTA Donatella EUI IT 2010

24 ROY Olivier EUI IT 2010

25 FOLLESDAL Andreas Universitetet i Oslo NO 2010

26 SANTOS Boaventura de Sousa Centro de Estudos Sociais PT 2010

27 COLLINS Harry University of Cardiff UK 2010

28 KALDOR Mary LSE UK 2010

report erc advanced grants

Documents