Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
RISCAPE BRU - Ari v2
9
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE LANDSCAPE 2019
European Perspective
Ari Asmi, PhD, eMBA
RISCAPE coordinator
University of Helsinki
Today's Event
NOTE
You have the "Pre-Print" version of the RISCAPE report - please do not directly quote this version. Final version will be available both print and PDF in the RISCAPE website
www.riscape.eu
Today's event
Programme
Like any good story it starts a long time ago in a place far away
The story of RISCAPE
In this case, about 4 years ago in Tokyo (where I was in a work trip)
I found out about the Commission call for a project to map the international landscape of research infrastructures
Idea of a project
Concept
I was involved in EC projects aimed (partly) for ESFRI international collaboration, and on the Environmental cluster project ENVRI-PLUS.
I was also aware of similar projects in other fields of science
There was a lot of silent knowledge in the ESFRIs and clusters on international RI landscape
Proposal
The overall proposal was then built on the concept of
- using the existing RI clusters (where available) and
- concentrating on major RIs which have potential for collaboration with the European ESFRI (and other major) RIs.
- Having an European viewpoint (i.e. selecting the methodology and aims from this perspective)
Coordination
Team
U. Helsinki
Environment
Physics
Health & Food
ECRIN ERIC
(CORBEL)
ILL
(EUCALL, SINE2020)
ICOS ERIC
(ENVRI)
Astronomy &
Astroparticles
Team
DH/CH/L
Energy
PIN SRL
(PARTHENOS)
ASTRON
(ASTERICS)
U. Turku
Social Sciences
Socia Sciences
Methodology
CESSDA
ESS ERIC
(SERISS)
Dissemination
E-infrastructures
APRE
EGI
How to do landscape analysis?
Methods
Some similarity with ESFRI RIs is needed!
Identifying the main user groups
The proposal included many potential user groups, but quickly the project concentrated on two main user groups
Who is this for?
European
RIs
Research funders
Collaboration
partners
Strategic
view on RIs
Other groups (scientists, policy makers, etc.) were also considered
What is this "Research Infrastructure" we are interested in?
What do we want to analyze?
The RISCAPE consortium analyzed the use of term Research Infrastructure
Common aspects found in most definitions
Literature analysis
Research purpose, as a service provider.
Rarely explicitly public nature. Public nature of RIs is more often mentioned in accompanying information.
longevity is implicit
Typically defined using examples: instrumentation, collections, collaborative networks, software, communication tools and human resources
unique, exceptional, “more- than-national relevance”, “indispensable”, or “major”
Four characteristics of RISCAPE RI
RISCAPE definition
4
1
RI has science or scientific research as the main driver of
its activities.
Science orientation
the need of finding complementary facilities to the ESFRI (and similar major infrastructures) Europe, which – as science-oriented organisations – are best mirrored by facilities concentrated on the same goals.
2
RI provides research services to users outside of the organisation itself.
Accessibility
fundamentally based on the European view of shared research facilities, and the RI as a service provider.
3
RI has an operational time horizon longer than the typical research projects in the field in question
Longevity
Any short-term projects or initiatives would make the collected information quickly obsolete.
Longevity is typical for the scale of operations required for European ESFRI infrastructures
4
It promotes excellence and is of significance for the science field in question
Excellence
This requirement was needed in order to have some degree of similarity to the European ESFRI landscape facilities, all of which are important at a European (i.e. regional) level.
What kind of information we need?
What kind of information?
- Clearly defining the questions and terminology.
- What are do we really want to know? What we can know?
- How to keep the questionnaire reasonable sized (approx 1h)?
- With the help of the Stakeholder panel, the set of RISCAPE questions were derived
Questionnaire categories
Position and future
General information
Identity
Services
Mission and goals
Capabilities and interaction
RISCAPE questionnaire
Data
European access
Funding and scale
Impact
Longevity and plans
Complementarity
Most were open field questions, with explanatory remarks on terminology, and purpose of the question
Full description of the questions are in
APPENDIX 2 of the report
Methodology of RISCAPE
How do we collect the info?
The methods were developed with the whole Consortium and the Stakeholder Panel
Main responsibility of
ESS ERIC and UHEL
The methodology had several requirements
Aims
- transparent (i.e. well-defined, documented and the process could be repeated using the same methodology),
- meaningful (suitable for purpose, collects relevant information),
- practical (the information can be collected with the resources
- available, (the information is possible to obtain),
- discipline-agnostic but -aware (enough similarity between fields of science, tolerance for domain-specific differences),
- error tolerant (possibility to detect erroneous information or misunderstandings).
The RISCAPE methodology
RISCAPE methodology
Discovery of "potential RIs"
European interaction
Discovery
Top-down
Experts
From non-EU RIs
Literature
Desk research before contact
Desk research
Rough analysis of the identified RIs, based web pages, discussions, and documents.
Quick mapping of the structure and operation of the RI, and discovery of potential contact points
Pre-selection
Most likely
Pre-selection
Does the "RI" fulfill the 4 requirements?
Does not
Not generally contacted
Contacting the RI
Contact
Contacts either from European partners or from RI websites
- Formal invitation email
- Three attempts to contact
- If possible, use of personal contacts
Setting the date and explaining the questions, formalities
Prior to interview, the survey is pre-filled
Pre-analysis
Shared before interview with the RI in question - as potential answers
Information from websites, documents
Saves time during interview
Helped to explain the intent and expected type of answer for the survey
Interview process
Information collection
- Structured interview
- The discussion (often virtual) was open, and each question was discussed.
- The intent was not only to collect information but also to make sure both sides understood the question and answer
Some teams (particularly Physics) also used offline surveys due to significant time required. However, they did return to confirm information in person if the answers required it
Data analysis and interpretation
Data analysis, interpretation
The answers were sent back to the RIs for making sure they match the recollection
Key aspects of each answer category was analysed in each disciplinary team
Final analysis and conclusions
Feedback and finalization
- Disciplinary reports were then collated together by the coordination
- Fact-checking for selected sections
- Consistency checks and editing the reports, and preparation of the final report
- Drawing the overall conclusions of the action
Main conclusions of the action
Results
Each RISCAPE section contains a work of a specialist team dedicated to the field in question - viewpoints on the global RI landscape.
Each section have their own key results, but here we concentrate on overall conclusions
Now we go through some of the key findings and disciplinary characteristics
How to get RIs to respond?
The response rate for the interviews /surveys was not high in any of the disciplines. Typically less than half of contact attempts succeeded.
Getting information is hard
Prior ESFRI collaboration
Personal contacts
Common language
Sampling bias!
Geographical locations of RIs are concentrated
North America, Japan, China, Australia and (relatively) S. Africa highly represented
RIs are (usually) where the funding is
funding + research community -> RI
"ESFRI scale", methods, response rate (+language) is biasing these results!
Big RIs are everywhere (but not in all fields)
(big) RIs are not European specialty
(except when they are)
Research infrastructures are a common tool in many fields globally
- Physics
- Astronomy
- Energy
Some fields (esp. big distributed) RIs are much more scarce:
- Social Sciences
- Digital humanities / Cultural Heritage
"European speciality"
Difficulty of characterizing RI impact
Socio-Economic impact
Scientific impact
Needed, but hard to assess
Almost always followed
Impacts are difficult everywhere
Often anecdotal
Service demand
Construction costs
Publications / citations
Increase in science level
Conferences
Public interest
Evaluations
Industry users
Commonalities of access
Resource demanding
Unlimited (e.g. data)
Access varies
(a little)
- Excellence-based the norm
- Sometimes "collaboration"-based
- Fees common for non-science use
- Access sometimes controlled by grants
- Open access common (but not as common as in EU)
- Data policies often not available
- Licences, etc. undefined
- Embargo periods
- "by request" still common
Overall, the bigger the RI - more likely to have clear access policies
Data and processing needs are increasing
Need of data and processing services
Particularly Physics and Astronomy RIs have a global awareness of resource needs in this sector.
In other fields, the costs of e.g. data repositories are mentioned.
Not all countries have very centralised approach, and can have several paraller initiatives
Commercial service providers are rarely mentioned
"ESFRI RIs"
Be aware of RISCAPE viewpoint
RI
Be aware of biases!
RI
"ESFRI scale"
RI
What does the RISCAPE leave as legacy?
Outcomes
The RISCAPE methodology
Separate publication is being prepared
Methods
- Interviews viewed good
- Potential for deep information
- Contacts for future
- Use of existing knowledge
- Biased towards "known knowns"
- Not full landscape (e.g. response rate)
- Terminology issues
- Language
RISCAPE report
Report itself
Currently pre-print status (factually correct, but minor editing needed)
Contains:
Main report (printed)
Appendices:
Questionnaire
Found RIs contact sheets
Other appendices
www.riscape.eu
Interview data
For the RIs which were interviewed
Interview data
Contain personal information (names, positions) and thus is available only by (documented and valid) request.
The data is stored for five years after project ends.
The data controller is University of Helsinki / Ari Asmi
The idea of the RISCAPE report is that it is used
Find synergies
Next steps
Building new RI collaboration
Identify joint activities
Build global access for RIs
Identify development needs