Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Figure 17. Did the exchange grant lead to further forms of cooperation between the two institutions? (N(EG)=176).
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
41
5.4 The Impact on Partners and Partner Countries
This evaluation focused primarily on the Swiss side of bilateral programs. From the information
collected, which with the exception of a few interviews comes from Swiss respondents, it was
difficult to assess the impact of bilateral programs on cooperation partners individually and on
partner countries overall. Nevertheless some preliminary indications could be provided.
When J RP participants were asked to rate their perception about the impact of the cooperation on
the partner, the argument most often ranked highly important and strengthened the position of the
partner in the scientific landscape as well as, to a lesser extent, the provision of additional
resources (see Figure 18). Since in most of the programs the public/private partnership did not
work very well, the low ranking of the local economy is not a surprise.
Figure 18. What is your perception about the impact of the cooperation on your partner? (N (J RP)=92).
J RP survey respondents also provided a balanced view of the broader impact of bilateral programs
on cooperation within these countries. Namely, 73% of the respondents consider that in these
countries, Switzerland was one of the possible partner countries for scientific cooperation and only
23% considered that it is a priority country. However in the case of Brazil, more than half of the
survey respondents cooperating with that country attributed it this status.
At the same time, only 7% of the J RP survey respondents considered that the bilateral program did
not modify this situation, but 29% said that the interest in cooperation increased strongly. Among
the large programs, this share dropped below 20% for South Africa and Russia, and is above 50%
for Brazil. These results have to be taken with care, as the absolute numbers are very small.
In sum, bilateral programs are useful and required instruments given the high level of competition
for cooperating with these countries. They do have an impact, but, given their size, they cannot
fundamentally change the position of Swiss research in the partner countries.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
42
5.5 General Discussion and Summary
These results are very preliminary because most of the projects have not yet finished. However, it
is largely confirmed that bilateral programs are very useful instruments in order to promote
research collaborations with partner countries. J RPs indeed are oriented towards scientific results
e.g. in terms of scientific publications or doctoral theses. What is more important, many of these
collaborations are not only related to the program funding, but also lead to stable collaboration
forms as they responded to a real need in the cooperation partners. In turn, exchange grants
proved to be useful instruments for light and initial collaboration and, at least according to the self-
declarations of respondents, in many cases are leading to further forms of collaborations (e.g.
wider-ranging projects, other exchanges). Of course these preliminary indications need to be
confirmed in a few years time with more in-depth assessments once all the projects have been
concluded. The interview respondents both in Switzerland and in some partner countries confirm
this positive picture. They all emphasize the positive contribution of bilateral programs to research
collaboration. Compared to the other goals, promotion of the educational landscape of Switzerland
clearly plays a minor role in these programs, at least from the researchers perspective.
The representatives of universities and leading houses have emphasized the other side of the
impact of bilateral programs. At the political and university level, these programs are quite helpful
in promoting the Swiss scientific landscape in emerging countries and increase the awareness of
the scientific potential of Switzerland. While most institutional cooperation was developed through
other means and through direct relationships at the University level, many interview respondents
considered that the presence of scientific cooperation programs provided marketing for Swiss
universities and thus made their cooperation effort easier. This is extremely important in all partner
countries - except perhaps Brazil as Switzerland is only one among the many potential scientific
partner countries where there is strong competition at the political and institutional level.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
43
6 A Look from Outside
Three leading international specialists in the evaluation of research funding programs have been
asked to comment on this report and its results. Besides their scholarly competence, they have
provided an outside look, allowing this report to go beyond the specificities of the Swiss political
and research system. Their feedback has been provided in the integral form below.
Philippe Lardo, Laboratoire Territoires Techniques et Socits, University of Paris Est
The evaluation clearly shows that we face classical academic collaborative projects with all that we
expect from them: academic outputs. We also know that those who conduct them in Switzerland
are well established in the system, being regular recipients of grants by the funding agency (over
90%) and of EU projects (more than 50%). The two aspects are intrinsically linked: the system
selects reliable academic actors and obtains academic results. No surprise at all.
One important specific asset is that Swiss partners globally consider these partnerships as
important, and there is a significant share of potentially lasting partnerships. The results were far
larger than pre-existing collaborations. This is probably the most meaningful result since it answers
the political goal: reorient scientific relationships towards key targeted countries. This raises,
however, the issue of the reasons to target some countries. The priority list of preferred countries
by researchers could have been easily anticipated. The inclusion of China, India, and J apan shows
the attractiveness of Asia (within this, the relatively low level of Korea would have significantly
changed if programs had a technological orientation). On the other hand, the low attractiveness of
Russia and of Latin America mirror the general situation observed in Europe.
However we have little information about the other side of the partnerships: why is it interesting for
partners to join? The views on this by Swiss researchers are banal: this is exactly what has been
found by evaluations about European partnerships. Furthermore, as we know little about the
funding the non-Swiss partner groups have received, it is difficult to get a better idea about
motivations and interests.
If the results overall push towards maintaining a set of bilateral programs, they strongly question
the organizational setting put in place. In all managerial dimensions (information, submission,
selection, information about results, contracts management), the respondents and the authors of
the report question the prevailing fragmented system, asking for harmonization and delegation of
operations to the Swiss funding agency. Still, the report concludes about keeping the leading
house model. Furthermore, the report shows that there is a clear bias by the managing universities
towards their own members. One can then understand the very split views expressed by
researchers, with a short majority for a nationalization of the process. The reader external to the
country thus does not understand the conclusion of the report, he would conclude to the failure of
the leading house model and would simply argue toward concentrating all bilateral programs
within the Swiss funding agency (which would ease the relations with partners, since most exhibit a
similar structure).
A final point: This does not answer the other ambition stated for the policy, that is favoring
university-industry collaborations. It is not only a question of adopting a different process. The
Swiss policymakers should remember that in most countries (and in all those concerned by the
bilateral agreements), funding an industry-university collaboration also requires the funding of
participating firms.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
44
Maria Nedeva, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MioIR) University of Manchester
First and foremost I would like to emphasize that I find this report very well informed, structured
and informative; having read it I learned much about the Swiss bilateral program.
How does Swiss policy, in this area, compare to other European countries?
If this question points towards identifying similarities and differences, I would have to say that
Swiss policy is different from the way in which bilateral cooperation is organized in the UK on many
counts; in fact there are too many to start listing. This is why Ill content with mentioning that the
differences are ones that come from three sources: one, the traditional organization of social life in
the UK; two, the perception of the global positioning in the science and innovation system; and
three, the size of the national science system.
How bilateral cooperation is organized ought to content with all three. From my understanding of
the report in question, Swiss bilateral cooperation is organized so that traditions, positioning, and
size are accounted for.
Are there suggestions and critical issues you can identify from your experience?
Not that I can think of; as I mentioned, in my opinion the report has covered all critical issues for
Swiss bilateral arrangements.
Do you consider that this is a good approach for a country the size of Switzerland?
Yes, I do consider that this is a good approach for a country like Switzerland (and with the specific
organization of research). As to change, I would agree with the authors of the report that this may
be necessary at a later stage but the schemes and arrangements have to be afforded time to
develop. It may be wise to build more bilateral links with Korea and J apan in the future this is not
only the expressed wish of the scientists but also would correspond to global patterns of scientific
excellence.
Emanuela Reale, Institute for Economic Research on Firms and Growth of the National Research
Council, Rome.
Bilateral programs confirm their value as means for establishing scientific cooperation between
countries, and for exploring new paths of relationships with non-EU countries in curiosity driven
research a factor that could play an important role for social and economic development. At the
same time it is encouraging that they cover a specific niche where there are very few funding
opportunities, thus demonstrating that they are naturally devoted to play a complementary role
rather than overlapping with other existing initiatives.
As to the organization, management, and funding decisions, the general impression is that the
implementation of funding instruments faced some typical constraints of the academic-like
instruments: bias in favor of the institutions hosting the leading house, higher success rate for
smaller funding instruments, concentration of funding in few HEIs, low effectiveness of cooperation
with private companies, and low participation of Universities of Applied Sciences.
The evaluation and management concentration of funding coming from different sources in a few
players paired with the low transparency and information provided to applicants are both elements
that can undermine the selection quality and the role of the funding instruments with respect to the
country strategy toward internationalization (loss of complementarities and increasing overlapping
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
45
with other funding instruments). Where evaluation and selection processes are concerned, further
remarks would be useful to deepen the characteristics of the mentioned processes. Can they be
investigated; such as composition of the panel, procedures for the selection of the reviewers,
where do the external members come from, what type of expertise do they have (academics vs.
professionals), and how open is the process and the report judgment produced?
As to the J oint research project, the profile of program participants highlights that they are more
often professors or senior researchers at Swiss universities who have a long experience and
involvement in SNSF funding instruments. It is rightly considered a positive sign of a good
selection of the best researchers, but given the aforementioned drawbacks of opacity in the
selection processes, the presence of lock inn effects could be also questioned, affecting the
program participants.
The impression is that bilateral programs are not tailored to support public-private research
collaborations. A set of dedicated incentives for firms, including specific rules for IPR management,
and modifications of the selection procedures might be introduced in order to get more effective
results in this form of collaboration.
As a whole, the evaluation exercise is well designed, and largely addresses the mandate received,
which is precise and limited in scope. It is devoted to assessing the impact of the bilateral research
programs in the context of the Swiss National ERI strategy.
In this respect, the information gathered, the methodology used, and the analysis delivered are
reliable and consistent; the summary and the recommendations are valuable for program
improvement, and feasible in order to better the National ERI strategy.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
46
7 General Discussion
In the following, evaluation results will be discussed and summarized to make recommendations
for the future planning and management of the programs (including country and topic selection, the
management model, and the development of cooperation with private partners).
7.1 Overall Assessment
Overall, the collected information shows that bilateral programs, as a whole, are perceived as a
successful funding tool. The Swiss program management broadly corresponds to the overall
standard in Switzerland and the quality of the program participants matches the level of SNSF
programs. The first reported results are promising for a successful production of valuable scientific
outcome. The chosen management model, based on university leading houses, allowed bilateral
programs to respond flexibly and pragmatically to the specific conditions of each partner country. It
was conductive to the fact that all programs managed to launch calls and fund projects, even in
cases where the relationship with the partner country was not so straightforward.
Both the researchers and the program managers agreed that the programs could create
strengthened scientific relationships with the partner countries and, to some extent, to attract
talented researchers to Switzerland (a relevant issue given the shortage of researchers in
Switzerland in some scientific fields). The impact of these programs should not however be
overestimated, especially for the largest countries. The number of research cooperation of Swiss
universities with the partner countries by far exceeds the number of projects funded by the bilateral
programs. Accordingly, it is considered that for the next funding period (2013-2016), there are no
reasons to fundamentally modify the overall setting of these programs, the choice of countries, and
the organizational structure. At the same time, the discussion presented in chapter 4 of this report
points to quite a number of possible improvements in the program management, i.e. to increase
efficiency, reduce administrative burden, and to achieve a more coherent setting across different
programs (bearing in mind that flexibility is a key element of international cooperation).
To summarize the main recommendations in this respect:
Instruments and funding conditions. Larger programs should include just two funding
instruments (J RP and EG), smaller programs, especially in the pilot phase, should only include
EG. The overall participation and funding rules for these instruments should be generalized for
all programs (allowing some customization for specific cases). For exchange grants, a lump
sum approach is advised in order to reduce the administrative burden.
Information policy. A common information policy should be defined covering web presence of
programs, program documentation, and diffusion of information. The use of a single information
instrument towards researchers and university grant offices (e.g. a newsletter for all programs)
would be particularly important.
Evaluation. For J RP, the model where the SNSF manages the scientific evaluation and the
joint committee then makes the selection should be adopted for all programs. Guidelines
should be provided for the evaluation process for all programs, drawing on the LH experience,
as well as general expertise at SNSF. Information to applicants needs to be improved.
Management. Individual LH should be avoided as there is need to further develop
competences concerning the management submission process, administrative procedures,
and financial and scientific reporting, but all these processes should be managed through
mySNF (which provides for integrating external partners in some processes, as done with the
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
47
university research commissions). Exchange grants could be an exception given their small
size.
Creating uniformity among the bilateral programs is important also at the research policy level, as
without it, there is a risk they are not perceived as part of an overall strategy and thus their political
visibility is reduced.
In terms of the management of the relationships with the LH, it would be recommendable that
before signing a specific contract with each LH the SER (possibly working together with the
SNSF and the LH) develop more specific rules and framework guidelines for the operations of all
bilateral programs to be integrated in individual contracts. The experiences in the current phase
provide good starting points for these tasks.
7.2 Selecting Partner Countries: The Difficult Choice
On a long-term perspective (from 2017 onwards), the selection of partner countries deserves a
cautious discussion, as there is an obvious trade-off in the effectiveness of these programs
between enlarging participation and concentrating the financial means. The information collected
provides important clues on this direction.
a) First, the current partner countries largely correspond to those, which researchers involved in
the programs and universities consider as their most important potential partners abroad
beyond Europe and North America. This also corresponds to the partner countries in other
European countries and to general patterns of scientific cooperation, as highlighted by
international experts. There have been a few mentions of other interesting countries, including
Iran and Turkey (Turkey is an ERA country however), as well as Australia (J RP survey). More
than half of the respondents to the J RP survey said, none to the question of whether new
countries should be added in future planning. 10% of the participants mentioned Australia and
the other answers did not provide any particular pattern. They were spread from countries in
Latin America (1% each) to Iran or the Balkan States (with 1 or maximum two nominations
each). A generic sample of Swiss researchers could have generated different results.
b) In terms of the relationships between the number of countries and the available funding, the
current number of programs seems to be rather large other European countries have a more
focused strategy. While the largest programs achieve some critical mass both in terms of
collaboration and program management the smaller programs (Chile, Korea, and J apan) are
too small, at least if the goal is to support collaborative research.
A possible approach in the long-term perspective which would align with the goal of providing
these programs with a clearer identity and simplifying the management would be to split the
bilateral programs in two distinct instruments:
1. Collaborative research projects (J RP) would be restricted to a small number of countries as
well as to selected topics (as calls open to all scientific fields would risk to be oversubscribed).
2. An exchange grants scheme would be open to a larger number of countries, but still focused
on scientifically important countries and open to all scientific domains (to the extent it could be
agreed upon with the cooperation partners). The overlap with SNSF international short visits
should be carefully considered in this context (a possible scenario would integrate EG in this
instrument as a specific funding line).
c) Program participants would provide clear-cut views on their level of priority for individual
countries, which would match their importance in the international scientific landscape. As
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
48
shown in Figure 19 the current bilateral countries can be divided into three groups: the first
three countries come immediately after the US and Europe as scientific cooperation partners,
China, J apan and India. The next group, three countries that are considered as important,
Russia, Korea, and Brazil; and finally, two countries that received generally low scores in terms
of the scientific importance, South Africa and Chile.
Figure 19. Please rate the importance of the cooperation with the following countries for the development of the Swiss
scientific landscape. (N(J RP)=92).
It is important to note that the strong priority attributed to China and India is not significantly
influenced by the fact that most of the responses come from the programs within India, China, and
Russia. The share of respondents from other programs considering the cooperation important or
very important is 88% for China and 69% for India, but only 25% for Russia and 20% South Africa.
A very similar result emerges when explicitly asking the priority level of countries in the next phase
of bilateral programs (see Figure 20). Although respondents tend to systematically provide higher
scores for the country with which they are cooperating, it did not have a strong impact on the
overall results except in the case of Russia, whose importance score droped significantly for
respondents not participating in that program.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
49
Figure 20: How do you evaluate the level of priority of individual country programs for the phase 2013-2016?
(N(J RP)=92) In: percent of respondents ranking the country at the first three places in priority.
With this information, a prioritization of countries, as well as some indications for differentiated
strategies, could be derived. Namely, China and India received the highest level of priority and the
fact that these are the two largest programs reflects the researchers interests very well. J apan and
(to a lesser extent) Korea were considered by researchers to be important partner countries, given
their high level of scientific development. This explains why the program with J apan was heavily
oversubscribed. For both, the option of a Lead Agency agreement with the SNSF could be strongly
considered, despite existing linguistic barriers.
Concerning the remaining countries, Brazil and Russia were considered as rather important by
researchers, but the context of the bilateral program was different. In Brazils case, Switzerland
managed to occupy a specific niche as there were very few countries who had joint funding
schemes there, giving the program strong priority. On the contrary, cooperation with Russia should
be carefully reassessed as this country is increasingly integrated in the European Research Area
and there are a number of available funding schemes at the European level (see chapter 3.2).
Researchers considered South Africa and Chile as the least important countries among those
currently in bilateral programs. An assessment confirmed this with the current patterns of scientific
collaborations at the global level. While there may be reasons for cooperation with South Africa it
being the most important African country and the Swiss tradition of cooperation with tropical
diseases - the continuation of the program with Chile cannot be justified. It was also taken into
account that cooperation did not work well in the current phase. For both countries, the new SDC-
SNSF fund for research on global issue should be considered as it provides a viable alternative to
bilateral programs.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
50
7.3 Discussing the Leading House Model
Overall, there was a general appreciation by all respondents that the LH model was useful in the
starting phase of these programs. LH has been active in developing contacts with the partner
countries and supporting scientific diplomacy. The LH invested in grooming and promoting the
programs and coaching potential applicants on how to participate. This last point should not be
overemphasized, as almost all J RP funded applicants also had SNSF projects, and thus were
supposed to be well acquainted with how to write proposals and develop good projects (the
situation may differ for exchange grants). From the involved universities perspective, hosting a
leading house was considered as an advantage in developing their scientific relationships, even in
the case of India and China. The number of existing cooperation from EPFL, respectively ETH
Zurich largely exceeded those fostered through the programs themselves. The selection of leading
houses of universities who already had experience with the partner countries also helped to
overcome initial difficulties in institutional cooperation.
While both the interviews and the survey results presented in chapter 4 show that overall the
program management worked satisfactorily, some concerns were still mentioned. Initially, the LH
model led to a differentiation of rules, evaluation procedures, and contract management that was
suboptimal for the applicants. Secondly, even some LH expressed concerns on the possible
confusion of roles between the LH role and the function of promoting research at their own
university. While there may be different reasons for this, the data displayed a concentration of
applications and funded projects to the universities hosting the LH (see chapter 2.3). It was also
mentioned that, from the perspective of partner countries, it may be questionable at what extent a
LH hosted by a single university would represent the whole national interest. At the same time
most LHs strongly argued the advantages of the currently model in terms of flexibility and
specificities of the programs.
This discussion is open because among the J RP recipients which were expected to be more
positive than average researchers on the current model about half of them considered the LH as
the best institution to manage bilateral programs, a slightly lower number preferred the SNSF (see
Figure 21). It can be noted that this appreciation refers to the management role of LH, not to their
political function in the relationship with partner countries, which is widely appreciated.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
51
Figure 21. Which institutions would in your opinion best manage the bilateral programs? (N(J RP)=92).
On the other hand, the political setting of bilateral programs is far away from the current orientation
of the SNSF funding policy. The SNSF decided not to enter into bilateral programs with the
exception of lead agency agreements from a lack of resources. If the Confederation was to
charge the SNSF with specific tasks in international cooperation, foreseen in the reform of the
research Law, this could, to some extent open up more possibilities.
The two programs managed jointly by SNSF and SDC Eastern European cooperation and the
new fund on global issues with developing countries displayed that their partnership models
could be designed and implemented, even if both schemes were funded only by Switzerland and
thus are not confronted with the additional complexities of joint programs with partner countries.
Discussion. Since this complex situation, the following future step by step strategy is suggested:
For the next funding period, it is not reasonable to replace the LH model. However, there are
very strong reasons to systemize the involvement of the SNSF in all operational tasks. This
should include submission of applications through mySNF for all programs, adoption of the
same guidelines and forms, and evaluation and ranking of proposals, contracts, financial
management, and reporting.
On a long term perspective, a model built on a partnership between SER and SNSF, where the
SER would assume the policy functions with possibly integrating representatives of the current
leading houses. All tasks related to research funding could then be managed by the SNSF. As
the development of such a model would be highly complex and require specific organizational
measures at the SNF, negotiations in this direction should only be started early in the 2013-
2016 period.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
52
7.4 Developing Cooperation with the Private Sector
As discussed in chapter 2.3, cooperation with the private sector was, among the general policy
goals of bilateral programs, the least achieved and attempts made in some programs did not
attract much interest as in the Indian private-partnership call and the Chinese internship program.
Given the high economic importance of these countries, this situation does not seem very
satisfactory.
What emerged from the interviews was that the current setting of bilateral programs is not very well
adapted to their tasks. The programs were strongly oriented towards scientific research, both
considering the topics, the target applicants and the selection criteria. Moreover, LH in universities
(expectedly) seemed to be at an expert level in managing scientific programs rather than in
creating contacts with the private sector (even if some LH made real efforts in this direction).
A specific weakness in this respect was the very low involvement of the CTI as a whole in the
bilateral programs. This was explained by the fact that CTI was in a process of restructuration in
recent years and international activities were transferred to the Federal Office of Professional
Education and Technology (OPET), which manages all European initiatives in this area (ERA-NET,
Swiss participation to Eureka, etc.).
Discussion. Under these conditions, trying to push the current programs and leading houses
toward stronger cooperation with the private sector entails a risk of dispersing efforts and making
the overall program profile less coherent (thus jeopardizing a long-term strategy of consolidating
these programs at the SNSF). Of course, networking activities with private partners inside the
current programs should be continued and reinforced to all possible extents and they can then
display impact.
At the same time, extension of international cooperation instruments towards emerging countries
should be considered as a specific task of CTI (or OPET) as already done so by European
initiatives like Eureka, J oint Technological Initiatives, and ERA-NETs. Given the huge economic
potential of these countries especially India and China this task should receive a high level of
priority in the coming years. CTI mandate to promote innovation and economic development in
Switzerland should also be given high priority.
Cooperation with the current bilateral programs and LH could be well-established through regular
exchanges of information and stronger involvement in the program joint committees of CTI is
strongly advised.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs
53
References
European Commission (2008), A Strategic European Framework for International Science and
Technology Cooperation, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament, COM(2008)588.
Conseil Fdral (2010), Stratgie international de la Suisse dans le domaine formation, recherche
et innovation, Berne.
Horwath M., Lundin N., Review of the Science and Technology Cooperation between the
European Community and the Government of the Peoples Republic of China, Brussels, 2008
ANNEX
ANNEX I: Frequency Table
Univ
Dr.
Ev
An
Lug
By o
ersit della Svizzera
Benedetto Lep
valuati
nnex I: Res
ano, Novembe
order of the Sta
a italiana | Via Gius
pori | Dr. Anke
ion of t
sults of the
er 2011
ate Secretariat
seppe Buffi 13 | CH
Dunkel
the Sw
e online su
for Education
H-6900 Lugano | Te
wiss Bil
urvey amo
and Research
el.: +41-58-666448
ateral
ng grant re
(SER) in colla
2 | Fax: +41-58-66
Resea
ecipients.
boration with M
66 4647
rch Pro
Frequency
Mauro Moruzzi
ograms
y Tables.
and Monica C
s
orrado.
Co
Surv
Gen
Prev
Perc
Res
Part
Imp
ontent
vey sample an
neral Informatio
vious experien
ception of bilat
search activities
ticipation in the
pact and perspe
d response rat
on about the pa
ce with funding
teral research p
s and internatio
e program ......
ectives ...........
te ...................
articipants ......
g instruments .
programs and t
onal cooperatio
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
their goals .....
on ..................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.................. 1
.................. 5
................ 12
................ 16
................ 20
................ 28
................ 40
SSurvvey
Sammpl
R
e an
Rate
nd R
e
Respon
1
nse
Sam
Surv
JRP
EG
All G
*
mple Descr
vey Participant
P
Groups
Information provi
ription
ts D
R
R
ded by the Leadin
Description
Recipients of J
Recipients of E
ng Houses. Last u
JRP grants
EG grants
update 1.10.2011
Sample
Census
Census
N
2
Number
125*
334*
458
Sen
Bra
Chi
Chi
Ind
Jap
Rus
Sou
Sou
Tota
* T
** T
*** O
fo
nt Emails a
azil
le
ina
ia
pan
ssia
uth Africa
uth Korea
al
The South Korea p
The programs with
One participant on
ollowing. Therefor
and Respon
program did not of
h Brazil, Chile and
nly answered to th
re this participant
nse Rate
Joint
N Emails
provided
(n=124)
10
6
37
22
9
24
16
n.a.*
124
ffer JRPs
d Japan did not off
he very first quest
was consequently
Research Proje
N answer
surveys
(n=93)
7
3
31
20
5
18
8
0
92***
fer EG
tion in the questio
y deleted and thu
ects (JRP)
red
s
Response
Rate
) 75%
70%
50%
84%
91%
56%
56%
50%
n.a.
74%
onnaire confirming
s excluded in the
Ex
e N Emails
provided
(n=334)
n.a.**
n.a.**
88
44
n.a.**
105
72
25
334
g that (s)he had re
following.
xchange Grants
N answe
survey
(n=176
0
0
47
24
0
53
37
15
176
eceived the quest
s (EG)
red
ys
Respons
Rate
6) 53%
n.a.
n.a.
53%
54%
n.a.
51%
52%
60%
53%
tionnaire, and did
3
e
not go on in the
Sam
Sur
Join
Exc
Tot
mple Distri
rvey Participan
nt Research Pr
change Grants
tal
bution
ts
rojects (JRP)
(EG)
E
E
xchange grants
xchange grants
incoming
outgoing
92
176
101
75
268
4
Gennera
al In
P
nform
Parti
mati
cipa
ion a
ants
abo
s
out t
5
he
Cu
Que
Sam
Sha
Pro
Sen
Pos
Ph.
Oth
Mis
Tota
Th
rrent emplo
estion: Whi
mple: All pa
are of all respon
ofessor
nior Researcher/
stdoc researcher
D. student
her
ssing
al
he answer possibi
oyment pos
ch is your curre
articipants of th
dants (single ch
/Lecturer
r
ilities were not giv
sition
ent employmen
he JRP survey
oice)
ven in this group.
nt position?
and all particippants of the EG
JRP
(n=92)
in %
77
20
3
0
100
G survey
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
27
16
10
34
13
1
101
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
52
23
7
7
8
4
101
Total
(n=176)
in %
38
19
9
22
11
2
101
6
Exp
Que
Que
Sam
Sha
Fac
Stu
Join
Pub
Oth
Non
Mis
Tota
T
perience w
estion to JRP p
Did
estion to EG pa
For
mple: All pa
are of all respon
culty Exchange
dent Exchange
nt Utilization of A
blic Private Partn
her
ne
ssing
al
The answer possib
with bilatera
participants:
you receive su
articipants:
which instrume
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
Advanced Facilit
nership
bilities were not gi
l research
upport from oth
ent did you rec
he JRP survey
choice)
ties
ven in this group.
programs
her instruments
ceive funding?
and all particip
s than Joint Res
pants of the EG
JRP
(n=92)
in %
61
11
7
5
7
10
0
101
search Projects
G survey
)
Inco
(n=
in
3
5
1
0
10
s?
EG
oming
101)
Outgo
(n=75
% in %
39 52
52 44
10 4
0 0
01 100
ing
5)
Total
(n=176)
% in %
44
48
7
0
0 99
7
Par
Que
Sam
Sha
Bra
Chi
Chi
Indi
Jap
Rus
Sou
Sou
Mis
Tota
*
rticipation
estion: To w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
azil
le
na
ia
pan
ssia
uth Africa
uth Korea
ssing
al
In Brazil and Chil
in specific
which bilateral
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
le EG were not pa
country pro
programs did y
he JRP survey
choice)
art of the funding
ograms
you participate?
and all particip
instruments prov
?
pants of the EG
JRP
(n=92)
in %
8
3
34
22
5
20
9
0*
0
101
vided.
G survey
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
0*
0*
31
13
0*
38
15
4
0
101
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
0*
0*
21
15
0*
20
29
15
0
100
Total
(n=176)
in %
0*
0*
27
14
0*
30
21
9
0
101
8
Sci
Que
Sam
Sha
Eng
Mat
Ren
Med
Life
Soc
Oth
Mis
Tota
* O
** S
a
ientific area
estion: In w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
gineering
terial Sciences a
newable Energie
dical and Health
e Sciences and B
cial Siences and
her
ssing
al
Other domains me
Since the question
s architecture, as
a of the res
which scientific
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
and Nanotechno
es and Environm
h Sciences
Biotechnology
d Humanities
entioned were: Ar
n was multiple cho
strophysics, educa
search
area is your re
he JRP survey
choice)
ology
ment
rt and design educ
oice, some additio
ation, chemistry, b
esearch?
and all particip
cation, eGovernm
onal participant ga
business administ
pants of the EG
JRP
(n=92)
in %
14
14
14
21
27
5
4*
0
99
ment, urban planni
ave some further i
ration, earth scien
G survey
Incomi
(n=10
in %
19
11
7
9
20
22
21
0
109*
ng and social scie
nformation about
nces etc.)
EG
ing
1)
Outgoin
(n=75)
% in %
15
17
5
13
21
24
17
0
* 112**
ences, physics an
their previous cho
ng
)
Total
(n=176)
in %
17
14
6
11
21
23
19
0
111**
nd medical device
oice in the section
9
n other (such
Yea
Que
Que
Sam
Sha
200
200
201
201
It di
Mis
Tota
Th
ar of projec
estion to JRP p
In w
estion to EG pa
In w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
08
09
0
1
id not take place
ssing
al
he answer possibi
ct approval
participants:
which year was
articipants:
which year did t
articipants of th
dants (single ch
e yet.
ilities were not giv
your project ap
the exchange ta
he JRP survey
oice)
ven in this group.
pproved?
ake place?
and all particippants of the EG
JRP
(n=92)
in %
16
47
35
2
0
100
G survey
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
3
12
38
46
2
0
101
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
1
15
31
44
8
1
100
Total
(n=176)
in %
2
13
35
45
4
1
100
10
Sta
Que
Que
Sam
Sha
App
Ong
Con
Les
1-3
1-3
4-6
1 ye
Mor
Mis
Tota
T
atus quo of
estion to JRP p
Whi
estion to EG pa
For
mple: All pa
are of all respon
proved
going
ncluded
ss than a week
weeks
months
months
ear
re than one year
ssing
al
The question was
f the projec
participants:
ch is the curre
articipants:
how long did y
articipants of th
dants (single ch
r
not asked in this g
t
nt status of you
your receive the
he JRP survey
oice)
group.
ur project?
e exchange gra
and all particip
ant?
pants of the EG
JRP
(n=92)
in %
1
92
7
0
100
G survey
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
7
11
40
21
20
2
0
101
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
9
17
25
21
19
4
4
99
Total
(n=176)
in %
8
14
34
21
19
3
2
101
11
PPrev
Fu
vious
undi
s Ex
ng I
xper
Inst
rien
rum
ce w
ment
with
ts
12
Exp
Que
Sam
Sha
Yes
No
Mis
Tota
T
perience w
estion: Did
mple: Parti
are of all respon
s
ssing
al
The question was
with internat
you have othe
cipants of the E
dants (single ch
not asked in this g
tional mobi
r experiences w
EG survey who
oice)
group.
lity
with internation
o received a gr
nal mobility in t
rant to go abroa
JRP
(n=92)
in %
the last years?
ad (outgoing)
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
If so, please s
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
49
47
4
100
pecify which
Total
(n=176)
in %
49
47
4
100
13
Pre
Que
Sam
Sha
Swi
Com
EU
Oth
Non
Mis
T
evious use
estion: Did
mple: All pa
are of all respon
iss National Scie
mmission for Te
Framework Pro
her
ne
ssing
The question was
of other fu
you receive fu
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
ence Foundation
chnology and In
ogrammes
not asked in this g
nding instr
nding from any
he JRP survey
choice)
n
nnovation
group.
ruments 1/2
y of the followin
2
ng general prog
JRP
(n=92)
in %
89
21
57
26
3
3
grams and age
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
encies in the las
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
st three years?
Total
(n=176)
in %
14
?
Pre
Que
Sam
Sha
Swi
SDC
Eur
Oth
Non
Mis
T
evious use
estion: Did
Euro
mple: All pa
are of all respon
iss National Scie
C Funding
ropean and Inter
her
ne
ssing
The question was
of other fu
you receive f
opean countries
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
ence Foundation
rnational Fundin
not asked in this g
nding instr
funding from t
s in the last thre
he JRP survey
choice)
n
g
group.
ruments 2/2
the following
ee years?
2
programs sup
JRP
(n=92)
in %
16
5
1
5
69
3
porting specifi
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
cally internatio
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
onal cooperati
Total
(n=176)
in %
15
on with non-
Res
Per
sear
rcep
rch
ption
Pro
G
n of
ogra
oals
f Bila
ms
s
ater
and
ral
d the
16
eir
The
Que
Sam
JRP
Rat
1 N
2 H
3 S
4 Im
5 V
Mis
Tota
e importan
estion: Plea
lands
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
ting from 1-5
ot important at a
ardly important
omehow importa
mportant
ery Important
ssing
al
ce of the di
ase rate the im
scape (1= not
articipants of th
all
ant
ifferent pro
mportance of c
important at a
he JRP survey
ogram coun
cooperating wit
ll 5 = very im
Brazil Ch
in % in
7 1
13 2
33 3
23 1
24 1
1 1
101 10
ntries
th the followin
mportant)
hile China E
% in % in
4 1 1
29 2 5
34 7 1
2 35 7
0 54 1
1 1 3
00 100 14
g countries fo
U India Japa
% in % in %
1 5 0
1 2 3
6 19 13
6 34 34
1 39 48
3 1 1
48 100 99
r the developm
an Russia S
% in % in
2
11
3 30
4 38
8 17
1
9 99 1
ment of the Sw
SA S-K USA
n % in % in %
11 7 0
24 8 2
36 33 7
16 34 22
12 19 69
1 1 1
100 102 101
17
wiss scientific
A
%
The
Que
Sam
JRP
Rat
1 N
2 H
3 S
4 Im
5 V
Mis
Tota
e importan
estion: How
items
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
ting from 1-5
ot important at a
ardly important
omehow import
mportant
ery Important
ssing
al
ce of the di
w relevant are,
s from 1=least
articipants of th
Stren
scientific r
with part
in
all
tant
1
ifferent pro
in your perce
important to 5=
he JRP survey
gthe the
relationships
ner country
in
th
n %
9
8
9
20
53
2
101
ogram goals
eption, the mai
=most importan
Strenghten t
nternational netw
he Swiss sciene
in %
9
9
27
37
16
2
100
s
n goals of the
nt.
the
work of
system
Promo
reco
Swiss
bilateral resea
ote international
gnition of the
education offer
in %
20
36
28
14
0
2
100
arch program?
Support expor
of Swiss educa
services
in %
53
22
12
3
8
2
100
? Please rank
rtation
ational
s
Attra
rese
Sw
18
the following
act talented
earchers to
witzerland
in %
8
24
22
24
21
2
101
The
Que
Sam
JRP
Rat
1 N
2 To
3 To
4 To
5 To
6 I c
Mis
Tota
e perceptio
estion: To w
goals
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
ting from 1-6
ot at all
o a minimal exte
o a moderate ex
o a high extent
o a very high ex
cannot say
ssing
al
on of the str
which extend d
s? (not at all,
articipants of th
Stren
scientific r
with part
in
ent
xtent
xtent
rategy to ac
does the curre
to a minimal e
he JRP survey
gthe the
relationships
ner country
in
th
n %
0
4
13
49
27
4
2
99
chieve thes
nt organization
xtent, to a mod
Strenghten t
nternational netw
he Swiss sciene
in %
3
5
26
42
16
4
2
98
se goals
n and funding v
derate extent, t
the
work of
system
Promo
reco
Swiss
volume of the
to a high extent
ote international
gnition of the
education offer
in %
10
12
36
22
7
12
2
101
bilateral progr
t, to a very high
Support export
of Swiss
educationa
services
in %
12
23
34
11
2
16
2
100
rams allow to a
h extent, I cann
tation
al
Attrac
resea
Swi
19
achieve these
not say)
ct talented
archers to
itzerland
in %
5
9
23
33
23
5
2
100
R
In
Res
nter
sear
nati
rch A
ona
Acti
al Co
vitie
oop
es a
erat
and
tion
20
Ov
Que
Sam
Sha
Non
Onl
Oth
Oth
I do
Mis
Tota
T
verlap with o
estion: To w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
ne
y small scale fu
her funding at Sw
her funding at Eu
o not know abou
ssing
al
The question was
other existi
which extent do
articipants of th
dants (single ch
nding
wiss level
uropean level
t other funding p
not asked in this g
ing instrum
o other instrum
he JRP survey
oice)
possibilities
group.
ments with p
ments, supportin
program co
ng cooperation
JRP
(n=92)
in %
16
25
10
16
30
2
99
ountry
with your part
Incoming
(n=101)
in %
ner country ex
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
in %
ist?
g Total
(n=176)
in %
21
Sim
Que
Sam
JRP
Rat
1 V
2 R
3 S
4 La
5 C
Mis
Tota
milarity to o
estion: To w
proje
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
ting from 1-5
ery much the sa
Rather similar
omewhat simila
argely different
Completely differe
ssing
al
other intern
which extent b
ect, countries c
articipants of th
ame
r
ent
national fun
bilateral progra
covered, etc.)?
he JRP survey
SNSF program
developing co
in %
3
15
44
27
9
2
100
nding instru
ams are simila
m with
ountries
S
a
uments
r to other inter
Swiss Agency fo
and Cooperation
in %
1
12
44
24
17
2
100
rnational fundi
or Development
(SDC) funding
%
2
4
4
7
0
ng initiatives (
European
initiatives (e
i
e.g. concernin
collaboration
e.g. ERA-NET)
n %
1
15
48
20
14
2
100
22
ng the type of
The
Que
Sam
Sha
Swi
Swi
Swi
Mis
Tota
T
e relevance
estion: To w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
itzerland is not c
itzerland is one
itzerland is a pri
ssing
al
The question was
e of Switzer
what extent do
articipants of th
dants (single ch
considered impo
of the many pos
orit country for s
not asked in this g
rland in the
you perceive t
he JRP survey
oice)
ortant at all
ssible partner co
scientif cooperat
group.
e internatio
that Switzerlan
ountries
tion
nal researc
d is a relevant
(
ch strategy
scientific coop
JRP
(n=92)
Incom
(n=1
in % in %
3
72
23
2
100
of the partn
peration partner
EG
ming
01)
Outgo
(n=75
% in %
ner country
r in your partne
ing
5)
Total
(n=176)
% in %
23
y 1/2
er country?
The
Que
Sam
Sha
Not
The
The
Mis
Tota
T
e relevance
estion: Did
mple: All pa
are of all respon
t at all
e awareness inc
e interest in coop
ssing
al
The question was
e of Switzer
the establishm
articipants of th
dants (single ch
reased
peration strongly
not asked in this g
rland in the
ment of a bilater
he JRP survey
oice)
y increased
group.
e internatio
ral cooperation
nal researc
n program mod
(
ch strategy
ify this situation
JRP
n=92)
Incom
(n=1
in % in %
8
61
28
3
100
of the partn
n?
EG
ming
01)
Outgoi
(n=75
% in %
ner country
ng
5)
Total
(n=176)
in %
24
y 2/2
The
Que
Sam
JRP
Rat
1 N
2 H
3 S
4 Im
5 V
6 I c
Mis
Tota
e importan
estion: Cou
impo
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
ting from 1-5
ot important at a
ardly important
omehow importa
mportant
ery Important
cannot say
ssing
al
ce of progr
uld you rate th
ortant at all, har
articipants of th
all
ant
ram countri
he importance
rdly important,
he JRP survey
ies for own
of the cooper
somehow impo
Brazil Ch
in % in
27 3
17 1
12 1
15 5
13 8
12 2
3 3
99 10
n research a
ration with the
ortant, importa
hile China E
% in % in
36 9 1
19 3 2
10 12 2
5 25 5
8 38 8
20 10 3
3 3 3
01 100 9
activities 1/
e following cou
nt, very import
EU India Jap
% in % in %
1 17 15
2 9 3
2 16 11
5 20 23
83 25 37
3 10 8
3 3 3
99 100 10
/2
untries for you
tant, I cannot s
an Russia
% in % i
5 19
12
1 17
3 19
7 16
14
3
0 100
ur research ac
ay)
SA S-K USA
n % in % in %
27 25 2
28 14 1
7 17 7
10 19 22
8 9 60
16 13 5
3 3 3
99 100 100
25
ctivities? (not
A
%
0
The
Que
Sam
Sha
It is
It is
It is
Mis
Tota
T
e importan
estion: How
mple: All pa
are of all respon
s one among oth
s part of our core
s our most impor
ssing
al
The question was
ce of progr
w important is y
articipants of th
dants single cho
her partners
e collaboration n
rtant cooperation
not asked in this g
ram countri
your partner in
he JRP survey
oice)
etwork
n partner
group.
ies for own
the joint projec
n research a
ct for your rese
(
activities 2/
arch activities?
JRP
(n=92)
Incom
(n=1
in % in
33
53
10
4
100
/2
?
EG
ming
101)
Outgo
(n=7
% in %
oing
5)
Total
(n=176)
% in %
26
)
Imp
Que
Sam
Sha
Nice
Imp
Indi
Mis
Tota
T
portance of
estion: For
mple: All pa
are of all respon
e to have
portant
ispensable
ssing
al
The question was
f bilateral p
your future res
articipants of th
dants (single ch
not asked in this g
programs fo
search bilateral
he JRP survey
oice)
group.
or future re
l research coop
search
peration progra
(n
ams are:
JRP
n=92)
Incom
(n=10
in % in %
33
54
10
3
100
EG
ming
01)
Outgoin
(n=75
% in %
ng
5)
Total
(n=176)
in %
27
Paartic
ipattion
in the PProggram
28
m
Re
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 Le
2
3
4 M
Mis
Tota
asons for p
estion: Why
least
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-4
east important
Most important
ssing
al
participatin
y did you partic
t important to 4
articipants of th
We
ad
g in the pro
cipate in the pr
4 most importan
he JRP survey
wished to receiv
dditional financia
resources
in %
19
24
24
29
4
100
ogram JR
rogram? Pleas
nt. Please use
ve
al
We alrea
cooperati
project
in
3
1
2
3
1
RP participa
se rank the foll
each number o
ady had a
on with this
t partner
n %
34
11
20
32
4
01
ants
owing reasons
only once.
The country
strategically
important for o
research
in %
23
36
23
14
4
100
s in order of the
is
y
our
The res
the prog
to our
eir importance
search topics of
gram correspond
main research
areas
in %
21
25
29
21
4
100
29
to you from 1
d
Re
Que
Sam
EG
Ran
1 Le
2
3
4 M
Mis
Tota
asons for p
estion: Why
least
mple: Outg
(n=75)
nking from 1-4
east important
Most important
ssing
al
participatin
y did you partic
t important to 4
going participan
A
im
a
g in the pro
cipate in the pr
4 most importan
nts of the EG s
stay abroad was
mportant for my
cademic career
in %
15
16
25
32
12
100
ogram Ou
rogram? Pleas
nt. Please use
urvey
s I needed t
available
insti
in
2
3
2
1
utgoing EG
se rank the foll
each number o
he expertise
at the host
itution
n %
8
23
32
25
12
00
participant
owing reasons
only once.
My research
focusses on th
country I visite
in %
23
28
15
23
12
101
ts
s in order of the
h
he
ed
I need
technolog
only av
eir importance
ded to use the
gical equipment
vailable there
in %
43
21
16
8
12
100
30
to you from 1
t
Re
Que
Sam
EG
Ran
1 Le
2
3
4 M
Mis
Tota
asons for p
estion: Why
least
mple: Incom
(n=101)
nking from 1-4
east important
Most important
ssing
al
participatin
y did you partic
t important to 4
ming participan
To
res
t
g in the pro
cipate in the pr
4 most importan
nts of the EG s
provide advance
search training t
the researcher
in %
28
20
15
22
15
100
ogram Inc
rogram? Pleas
nt. Please use
urvey
ed
o
To streng
exisitn
collabor
in %
17
18
27
24
15
101
coming EG
se rank the foll
each number o
gthen
ng
ration
To g
the o
more
%
participant
owing reasons
only once.
give the research
opportunity to le
e about research
Switzerland
in %
19
27
23
17
15
101
ts
s in order of the
her
arn
h in
To provid
team w
exper
p
eir importance
de our research
with additional
rtise from the
partner
in %
21
21
21
23
15
101
31
to you from 1
Pre
Que
Sam
Sha
No
JRP
EG
JRP
EG
Oth
Mis
Tota
T
evious expe
estion: To w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
previous cooper
P: Experience w
: Previous Con
P: Experience w
: Institutional c
her
ssing
al
The question was
erience wit
which extent di
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
ration
with same partne
ntact with the Ins
with different part
ooperation agre
not asked / does
h the partn
d you coopera
he JRP survey
choice)
r in previous coo
stitution
ter in the same c
eement
not apply to/ in th
er country
te in the past w
and all particip
operation
country
is group.
with the country
pants of the EG
JRP
(n=92
in %
41
36
19
4
100
y of your joint p
G survey
2)
Incomi
(n=10
in %
28
46
9
2
9
project?
EG
ing
1)
Outgo
(n=7
% in %
32
43
12
6
13
oing
5)
Total
(n=176
% in %
30
45
10
4
10
32
)
Ap
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 V
2 R
3 Fa
4 R
5 V
Mis
Tota
ppreciation
estion: How
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-5
ery insufficient
Rather insufficien
air
Rather good
ery good
ssing
al
of the evalu
w would you ev
articipants of th
nt
uation proc
valuate the follo
he JRP survey
cess JRP
owing aspects o
Profession
of the eval
in %
0
1
25
42
27
4
99
participant
of the evaluatio
nalism
luation
Fair
% in
0
2
1
4
3
4
10
ts
on process for
ness Trans
% i
0
2
6
45
33
4
00 1
joint research
sparency Tim
ha
n %
3
8
29
37
19
4
100
projects?
me until decision
as been taken
in %
2
13
22
46
13
4
100
33
Ap
Que
Sam
EG
Ran
1 V
2 R
3 Fa
4 R
5 V
Mis
Tota
ppreciation
estion: How
mple: All pa
(n=176)
nking from 1-5
ery insufficient
Rather insufficien
air
Rather good
ery good
ssing
al
of the evalu
w would you ev
articipants of th
nt
uation proc
valuate the follo
he EG survey
cess EG p
owing aspects o
Professio
of the ev
in %
0
2
17
40
30
1
10
participants
of the evaluatio
onalism
valuation
Fa
% i
0
2
7
0
0
1
00
s
on process for
irness Tran
n %
0
1
16
39
33
11
100
exchange gran
nsparency Tim
h
in %
1
7
21
35
24
11
99
nts?
me until decision
has been taken
in %
1
5
14
36
32
11
99
34
n
Ap
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 V
2 R
3 Fa
4 R
5 V
Mis
Tota
ppreciation
estion: How
rathe
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-5
ery insufficient
Rather insufficien
air
Rather good
ery good
ssing
al
of the prog
w would you ev
er good, very g
articipants of th
I
nt
gram manag
valuate the follo
ood)
he JRP survey
nformation abou
the program
in %
0
4
24
51
16
4
99
gement J
owing aspects o
ut Call informa
and docum
in %
1
1
24
46
24
4
100
RP particip
of the program
ation
ments
Submi
form
in
1
1
19
50
25
4
10
pants
m management?
ission
ms
Scie
rep
% in
9
0
5 2
4
00 1
? (very insuffic
entific
orting
Cont
m
n %
0
1
19
52
24
4
100
cient, rather ins
tract and financia
management
in %
1
4
25
38
27
4
99
35
sufficient, fair,
al
Ap
Que
Sam
EG
Ran
1 V
2 R
3 Fa
4 R
5 V
Mis
Tota
ppreciation
estion: How
rathe
mple: All pa
(n=176)
nking from 1-5
ery insufficient
Rather insufficien
air
Rather good
ery good
ssing
al
of the prog
w would you ev
er good, very g
articipants of th
Informa
the p
i
nt
gram manag
valuate the follo
ood)
he EG survey
ation about
program
C
in %
0
3
13
44
30
10
100
gement E
owing aspects o
Call information a
documents
in %
0
4
13
40
33
10
100
EG participa
of the program
and Submiss
forms
in %
0
2
15
38
35
10
100
ants
m management?
sion
s
Scien
repor
in %
1
2
17
45
25
11
10
? (very insuffic
ntific
rting
Contra
m
%
7
5
5
1
1
cient, rather ins
act and financial
management
in %
1
2
15
34
38
10
100
36
sufficient, fair,
l
Ap
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 Le
2
3 M
Mis
Tota
ppreciation
estion: Whi
least
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-3
east preferred
Most preferred
ssing
al
of the man
ch institutions
t preferred to 3
articipants of th
agement m
would in your
most preferred
he JRP survey
model
opinion best m
d.
A leading
in %
13
38
45
4
100
manage the bila
g house
%
3
8
5
0
ateral programs
The SNSF
in %
21
35
40
4
100
s? Please ran
Th
adm
k the following
he federal
ministration
in %
62
23
11
4
100
37
g items from 1
Ap
Que
Sam
Sha
The
The
The
The
Mis
Tota
T
ppreciation
estion: To w
mple: All pa
are of all respon
e program rules
e program rules
e program rules
e program rules
ssing
al
The question was
of the prog
which extent ha
articipants of th
dants (single ch
favored collabor
are irrelevant
complicated col
made collaborat
not asked / does
gram rules
ave the program
he JRP survey
oice)
ration
laboration
tion impossible
not apply to/ in th
m rules been s
is group.
supportive to th he collaboration
JRP
(n=92
in %
50
33
11
1
4
99
n with the proje
P
2)
Incoming
(n=101)
Ou
(n
% in %
ect partner?
EG
utgoing
n=75)
Total
(n=176)
in % in %
38
)
Po
Que
Sam
Sha
I wo
We
I wo
We
I wo
We
I wo
We
Mis
Tota
T
ssible alter
estion: If yo
mple: All pa
are of all respon
ould have renou
would not have
ould have asked
would have trie
ould have financ
would have ask
ould have applie
would have ask
ssing
al
The question was
rnatives to
ou would not ha
articipants of th
dants (single ch
nced to the stay
e received an exc
d support from m
ed to pay for the
ced the stay mys
ked the host to c
ed for another gr
ked for other gra
not asked / does
the grant
ave received th
he EG survey
oice)
y.
change research
my university.
host on our own
self.
come on his own
rant.
ants.
not apply to/ in th
he grant.
her.
n expense.
n expense.
is group.
JRP
(n=92
in %
P
2)
Incoming
(n=101)
Ou
(
% in %
58
16
6
5
15
100
EG
utgoing
n=75)
Total
(n=176
in % in %
48
19
8
8
17
100
39
)
Immpa
act aand
Perspeectivves
40
Act
Que
Sam
Sha
Par
Par
Pre
Wo
Doi
Oth
Mis
T
tivities dur
estion: Whi
mple: All pa
are of all respon
rticipating in scie
rticipating in edu
esenting own wo
rking together w
ng fieldwork and
her
ssing
The question was
ing the gra
ch activities did
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
entific workshops
ucational activitie
rk in a seminar
with colleagues o
d/or collecting da
not asked / does
nt period
d you undertak
he EG survey
choice)
s
es
on joint publicatio
ata
not apply to/ in th
ke during the g
ons
is group.
rant period?
JR
(n=9
in %
RP
92)
Incoming
(n=101)
O
% in %
48
59
63
61
49
16
8
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
Tota
(n=17
in % in %
44 46
31 28
47 56
51 57
26 53
9 14
17 12
41
l
6)
%
Joi
Que
Sam
Sha
Sch
Yes
Plan
No
Doc
Yes
Plan
No
Rep
Yes
Plan
No
Oth
Yes
Plan
No
Mis
int results
estion: Did
mple: All pa
are of all respon
holarly publicat
s
nned
ctoral thesis
s
nned
ports
s
nned
her
s
nned
ssing
the project / gr
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
tions
rant lead to join
he JRP survey
choice)
nt results?
and all particippants of the EG G survey
JR
(n=9
in %
46
48
2
16
38
41
33
23
40
29
12
54
4
RP
92)
Incoming
(n=101)
O
% in %
6 21
8 60
11
6 8
8 29
1 55
3 26
3 13
0 53
9 14
2 9
4 69
4 8
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
Tota
(n=17
in % in %
29 24
42 49
23 14
13 10
17 24
52 54
13 21
20 16
49 51
21 17
17 13
44 59
17 12
42
al
76)
%
Ma
Que
Sam
EG
Rat
1 N
2 R
3 N
4 R
5 V
Mis
Tota
ain results o
estion: Acco
appli
mple: Parti
(n=75)
ting from 1-5
ot very importan
Rather not import
ot applicable
Rather important
ery important
ssing
al
of EG
ording to you,
icable, rather im
cipants of the E
nt
tant
what are the
mportant, very
EG survey who
I got em
materi
my res
in %
9
4
17
32
20
17
99
main results o
important, othe
o went abroad
mpirical
al for
earch
I d
th
metho
%
9
4
7
2
0
7
9
of your exchang
er)
evelopped new
heoretical and
odological expert
in %
1
3
13
40
25
17
99
ge grant? (no
tise
I cr
relation
high level
in
t very importan
reated
ships with
l academics
I
e
n %
0
0
5
29
48
17
99
nt, rather not i
improved my C
thanks to the
experience abroa
in %
8
16
17
23
19
17
100
43
mportant, not
V
ad
Inst
Que
Que
Sam
Sha
JRP
EG:
Yes
Plan
No
JRP
Agre
EG:
Yes
Plan
No
JRP
cent
EG:
Yes
Plan
No
JRP
cou
EG:
Yes
Plan
No
JRP
univ
Yes
Plan
No
Miss
titutiona
stion to JR
D
fo
stion to EG
D
th
mple: A
re of all res
P: Signed c
Signed co
nned
P: Launch o
eement
A joint res
nned
P: Foundati
tre/laborato
A joint res
nned
P: Hiring fac
ntry/univer
Other
nned
P: Hiring Sw
versity
nned
sing
alized co
RP participa
Did the pro
orms?
G participa
Did the ex
he two inst
All participa
spondants (m
cooperation
ooperation
of Joint Ed
search proj
ion of a joi
ory
search proj
culty from
rsity
wiss faculty
ooperati
ants:
oject lead
ants:
xchange gr
titutions?
ants of the
multiple cho
n agreemen
agreement
ucational
ject was pr
nt research
ject was ap
the partne
y at the pa
ion
to the dev
rant lead t
JRP surve
oice)
nt
t
roposed
h
pproved
er
rtner
velopment
to further f
ey and all p
JRP
(n=92)
In
(
in %
13
16
66
2
8
86
3
7
86
9
7
80
3
10
83
4
of institutio
forms of c
participants
ncoming
n=101)
O
(
in %
11
80
10
81
12
79
30
61
9
onalized co
cooperation
s of the EG
EG
Outgoing
(n=75)
T
(n
in % i
12
69
12
69
12
69
28
53
19
44
ooperation
n between
G survey
Total
=176)
n %
11
76
11
76
12
75
29
58
13
4
n
n
Fur
Que
Sam
EG
Yes
Plan
No
Mis
Tota
EG
Yes
Plan
No
Mis
Tota
rther excha
estion: Is so
mple: All pa
(n=75) Outgo
s
nned
ssing
al
(n=101) Inco
s
nned
ssing
al
anges
omebody from
articipants of th
oing participant
ming participan
your host insti
he EG survey
ts
Stude
comi
nts
Studen
goin
tution coming i
nt exchange: so
ng from host ins
in %
33
11
39
17
100
nt exchange: som
ng to host institu
in %
13
13
59
15
100
in turn to your
omebody
stitution
Fac
com
mebody
ution
Facu
go
home institutio
culty exchange: s
ming from host in
in %
33
20
29
17
99
ulty exchange: s
oing to host inst
in %
22
23
41
15
101
n?
sombody
nstitution
sombody
itution
JUAF
in %
16
16
51
17
100
JUAF
in %
10
16
59
15
100
45
Fur
Que
Que
Sam
Sha
JRP
EG
JRP
EG
JRP
EG
Mis
Tota
rther coope
estion to JRP p
Do y
estion to EG pa
Are
mple: All pa
are of all respon
P: Yes
: Yes, for sure
P: Maybe
: Yes, but only
P: No
: No, I do not th
ssing
al
eration
participants:
you plan to con
articipants:
you planning f
articipants of th
dants (single ch
if I find funding
hink so
ntinue the coop
further visits at
he JRP survey
oice)
for my stay
peration with yo
your host insti
and all particip
our partner?
tution?
pants of the EG G survey
JRP
(n=92
in %
62
32
2
4
100
P
2)
Incoming
(n=101)
Ou
(
% in %
22
63
7
8
100
EG
utgoing
n=75)
Total
(n=176
in % in %
49 34
24 47
8 7
19 13
100 101
46
)
Imp
Que
Sam
Sha
It is
It is
It is
Mis
Tota
T
pact of the
estion: How
mple: All pa
are of all respon
s one among oth
s part of our core
s our most impor
ssing
al
The question was
program o
w important is y
articipants of th
dants (single ch
her partners
e collaboration n
rtant cooperation
not asked / does
n own rese
your partner in
he JRP survey
oice)
etwork
n partner
not apply to/ in th
earch
the joint projec
is group.
ct for your research activities??
JRP
(n=92)
Inco
(n=
in % in
33
53
10
4
100
EG
oming
101)
Outgoing
(n=75)
% in %
47
g Total
(n=176)
in %
Imp
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 Le
2
3
4
5 M
Mis
Tota
pact of the
estion: Wha
1=lea
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-5
east important
Most important
ssing
al
program o
at is your perce
ast important to
articipants of th
The cooperati
provided the
additional re
in %
13
12
23
10
38
4
100
n partner
eption about th
o 5= most impo
he JRP survey
on project
em with
esources
po
%
he impact of th
ortant.
Their scientific
osition has been
strengthened
in %
4
11
13
39
28
4
99
he cooperation
n
They stre
their posit
their home
in
5
2
3
2
8
4
10
on your partn
engthened
tion inside
e institution
Th
co
r
%
5
23
37
23
8
4
00
ner? Please ra
hey improved th
onnections with t
regional econom
in %
63
19
7
7
1
4
101
ank the followin
heir
the
my
They a
becoming
internatio
in %
10
31
16
17
21
4
99
48
ng items from
are
more
onal
The
Re
e Fu
esea
uture
arch
e of
h Pr
f Bila
rogr
ater
rams
ral
s
49
Su
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 Le
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 M
Mis
Tota
ggestions f
estion: How
prog
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-3
east important
Most important
ssing
al
for future p
w would you e
rams 2013-201
articipants of th
priority cou
evaluate the le
16? Please ra
he JRP survey
ntries
evel of priority
nk each countr
Brazil Chile C
in % in % i
5 36
15 23
14 8
13 8
15 4
14 2
11 9
8 7
4 4
99 101
y of individual
ry in order of p
China India
in % in %
7 0
1 4
3 10
4 13
12 17
14 25
21 16
34 10
4 4
100 99
country progr
riority going fro
Japan Russ
in % in %
3 5
11 5
8 14
14 21
11 15
14 10
16 11
19 14
4 4
100 99
rams for the n
om 1 least impo
sia South Afric
% in %
25
22
20
8
5 7
0 7
4
4
4
9 101
next phase of
ortant to 8 mos
ca South Korea
in %
14
14
20
15
14
10
8
1
4
100
50
f the bilateral
st important.
a
Ne
Que
Sam
Sha
Non
Aus
Boli
Gua
Hai
Oth
T
ed for addi
estion: Sho
mple: All pa
are of all respon
ne
stralia
ivia
atemala
ti
her
The question was
tional coun
ould the bilatera
articipants of th
dants (multiple c
not asked in this g
ntry progra
al programs be
he JRP survey
choice)
group.
ms
e extended to o
other countries,
J
(n
which addition
JRP
n=92)
Incom
(n=10
in % in %
65
10
3
5
3
13
nal countries w
EG
ming
01)
Outgoin
(n=75
% in %
51
de? (max 3)
Su
Que
Sam
JRP
Ran
1 N
2 H
3 S
4 Im
5 V
Mis
Tota
* IPP
ad
ggestions f
estion: Whi
prog
mple: All pa
P (n=92)
nking from 1-3
ot important at a
ardly important
omehow importa
mportant
ery important
ssing
al
P (Institutional P
vanced facilities
for future p
ch level of pri
rams? (not im
articipants of th
all
ant
Partnership), JRP
s) PPP (public pr
priority inst
ority would yo
mportant at all, h
he JRP survey
P (Joint Researc
rivate partnershi
ruments
ou attribute to
hardly importan
ch Project), FE (
ip)
the following
nt, somehow im
(faculty exchang
instruments in
mportant, impor
IPP* JRP* F
in % in % in
4 0
12 0
36 4 3
29 23 3
12 66 1
7 7
100 100 1
ge), SE (student
the next phas
rtant, very impo
E* SE*
n % in %
1 0
8 1
34 13
37 41
14 38
7 7
01 100
exchange), JUA
se of the bilat
ortant)
JUAF* PPP*
in % in %
4 13
16 23
34 38
28 14
11 5
7 7
100 100
AF (Joint utilizati
52
eral research
*
ion of
Su
Que
Sam
Sha
Mor
Kee
Be
Mis
Tota
ggestions f
estion: Con
woul
mple: All pa
are of all respon
re specific topics
ep same diversit
open to all fields
ssing
al
for future p
ncerning the pr
d you suggest
articipants of th
dants (single ch
s
ty
s
priority rese
riority research
to add to the p
he JRP survey
oice)
earch areas
h areas, the b
priority list of re
s
bilateral progra
esearch areas?
ams in the futu
?
JRP
(n=92
in %
8
48
38
7
101
ure should be:
P
2)
Incoming
(n=101)
Ou
(
% in %
: Which re
EG
utgoing
n=75)
Total
(n=176
in % in %
53
search areas
)
ANNEX II Statistical Overview
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs: Annex II
Statistical annex
1.1 Call statistics
1
This information is based on data provided by the LH at the time of data collection in September 2011.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs: Annex II
China India Korea Russia SA Total
Berner Fachhochschule 1 0 0 2 0 3
EAWAG 1 0 1 0 0 2
EPFL 10 14 6 17 0 47
ETHZ 22 5 12 27 1 67
Fachhochschule Nordwestschweiz 1 0 0 1 4 6
Fachhochschule SUPSI 0 0 0 4 0 4
Haute Ecole Spcialise de Suisse occidentale 1 0 0 0 2 3
Hochschule Luzern 0 0 0 1 0 1
Paul Scherrer Institute 4 2 0 1 0 7
Universitt Basel 3 1 1 1 29 35
Universitt Bern 5 1 2 3 2 13
Universitt Fribourg 4 5 0 2 0 11
Universitt Genve 7 6 0 29 2 44
Universitt Lausanne 3 4 1 13 0 21
Universitt Lugano 2 0 0 1 0 3
Universitt Luzern 1 0 0 0 3 4
Universitt Neuchtel 0 1 1 2 4 8
Universitt Zrich 19 1 1 1 10 32
Zrcher Fachhochschule 1 0 0 0 0 1
Other 2 4 0 4 15 25
Total 87 44 25 109 72 337
1.2.3 Joint research projects
Brazil Chile China India Japan Russia SA
Grand
Total
EAWAG 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 4
EPFL 4 1 8 7 2 9 1 32
ETHZ 2 1 7 1 1 0 2 14
Friedrich Miescher Insitut 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3
Haute Ecole Spcialise de Suisse
occidentale
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Paul Scherrer Institute 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
Universitt Basel 1 0 0 3 2 2 5 13
Universitt Bern 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 6
Universitt Fribourg 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2
Universitt Genve 0 0 2 3 1 7 3 16
Universitt Lausanne 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 7
Universitt Lugano 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Universitt Zrich 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 5
Other 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 4
Grand Total 10 6 25 19 9 24 17 110
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs: Annex II
2
This information is based on data provided by the LH at the time of data collection in September 2011.
Evaluation of the Swiss bilateral research programs: Annex II
List of in
Name
Maio Su C
L Yonglon
Gerhard S
Erich Thale
Antonio Lo
J ean-Claud
Ursina Rod
Yves Flck
Irina Niggli
Raj Kumar
Thomas Au
Carlos Alb
Klara Seka
Andreas R
Gillian Oliv
J ean-Luc B
Marc-Andr
tion of the Sw
nterview
Chen
ng
chmitt
er
oprieno
de Bolay
der
kiger
i
r Sharma
uf der Heyd
erto Arago
anina
Reuter
vieri
Barras
r Gonin
wiss bilateral
w partner
de
o de Carval
l research pr
rs
ho
rograms: Ann
Insti
ETH
CAS
ETH
Univ
Univ
EPF
EPF
Univ
Univ
Depa
Depa
Afric
Form
CTI
CTI
SNS
SNS
Prs
Fors
Fors
Fach
nex III
itution
Z
S (Chinese A
Z
versitt Base
versitt Base
L
L
versitt Gen
versitt Gen
artment of S
artment of S
ca)
mer Head of
SF
SF
sident der K
schung und
schungskom
hhochschule
Academy of
el
el
ve
ve
Science & T
Science and
f Program (
KFH Fachko
Entwicklun
mmission, V
e
f Sciences)
Technology
d Technolog
Brazil)
ommissione
g, Prsiden
Vizedirektor
(India)
gy (South
n,
nt der BFH
Berner