Research Funding


Horizon Europe: the EU plans to spend €100 billion on research – here’s how to get the most from it


Ferran Giones, University of Southern Denmark

Imagine that you could decide how to invest €10 billion in research projects. Now imagine that you have to make this decision not once, but every year for the next decade. This is effectively what the EU needs to do in preparation for its next programme of funding for research and innovation, known as “Horizon Europe”, which will cover €100 billion of investments from 2021 until 2027.

What could seem like a dream job for those who simply want to find and support some of the world’s best research is actually a daunting game of political negotiation. EU politicians disagree on whether to solely promote excellence or to use the funds to compensate existing imbalances in Europe’s research.

But there’s also another factor at play. As the EU research budget has grown (up from €3.8 billion for 1984-1987 to the €100 billion for 2021-27), so has the pressure for the investment to produce greater economic and social benefit. The European commissioner for research, science and innovation, Carlos Moedas, recently said that “for every €100 invested, we expect to add €850 to the European GDP by 2030”. Yet the evidence on the impact of innovation programmes is subject to extensive debate.

Horizon Europe actually represents just about 5% of the EU’s total spend on research and development when you include all national public and private investment. This means how the money is allocated will have to be spot on if the EU really expects it to have a significant effect on GDP growth and productivity. So how can we get the most from this investment?

First, you don’t just have to give money directly to researchers to improve the impact of R&D. Recent research shows that relaxing immigration rules or broadening STEM education access might have a stronger long-term effect on innovation and economic growth than direct public funding.

Collaborative projects

Second, we could change the way that publicly funded researchers work with the private sector. Most public innovation programmes focus on funding collaborative projects between firms and universities.

This assumes companies can combine their market knowledge with the advanced research of academics to accelerate innovation. It also allows companies to explore high-risk innovation without it threatening their future operations, and helps researchers better understand the problems that actually matter to the marketplace.

The problem is that research shows these types of project aren’t actually that good at bringing scientific research to market, helping innovative small businesses grow or accelerating the high-tech transformation of the economy.

The EU hopes to address this problem by focusing part of Horizon Europe on narrower, more specific outcomes. This so-called “mission-oriented” strategy will receive up to 10% (or about €5 billion) of the overall budget for global challenges and industry competitiveness.

This plan mimics some of the assumptions behind the UK’s recent industrial strategy in that it tries to align research efforts towards specific goals. A model for this is the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which include eliminating poverty, improving health and education and generating clean, affordable energy.

Researchers and business need new ways to work together. Air Images/Shutterstock

For this to work, we will need to see changes in the way universities and industry work together. It means that researchers will, in many cases, have to shift their current research trajectories. For example, a nanotechnology researcher might have to increase attention to how their nanostructures could contribute to healthier oceans or energy-efficient cities, in line with society’s current big challenges.

A recent study of medical research shows that it might cost over €3m for a scientist to redirect their attention in this way. The decision to enter a new research field depends on the similarity to what the researcher is already doing. The more radical the change, the bigger the threat that the switching researcher will be less competitive than those already in that application area and so won’t win the available grant.

The shift to mission-based funding will also mean that firms will have to be more open to engaging with universities. My own recent study shows that this can take more than tax subsidies or generous grants. We need to encourage firms to reconsider who they engage in their innovation efforts. For example, I found that just being invited to get to know researchers and become familiar with a university’s activities can be a first step for a company to take part in a joint research project.

While it will be important to target specific goals, a bigger change in how we think about science innovation policy could better justify spending €100 billion on research. It may just be that to trigger more unexpected and disruptive innovations, firms and universities need more support to be open to experimentation and to potential failures. In the end, why should we expect different results if we insist on doing the same things?

Ferran Giones, Assistant Professor in Technology Entrepreneurship, University of Southern Denmark

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

More on Gamification

How gamification can boost student success

A staff-wielding Arcstrider character takes on foes in Destiny 2. The video game by Bungie studio, published by Activision, makes use of badges and other achievements to spur on players — a technique that can be applied to education. Handout

Aaron Langille, Laurentian University

In a perfect world, students would be self-motivated to focus during lectures and practice or study the material. Unfortunately, this is often not the case for many reasons. Recognizing that engagement is one of the key elements for student success is what leads many of us, as professors and teachers, to develop and adopt techniques to foster it.

As an educator teaching undergraduate students, I have been exploring an approach that I was already familiar with in a non-academic context: Gamification.

In its simplest form, gamification is the application of game design elements to non-game tasks. Some of the richer but more complex gamification techniques include quests, “levelling-up” and role-playing while the simpler and more common elements include points, badges, achievements and instant feedback.

Of course, I use more conventional tools as well. The ones I tend to call on most include applied examples, analogy, humour and a healthy dose of pop culture references. I also use group discussions, elements of “flipped classrooms” and various digital platforms to provide some variety in the delivery methods. I inherited some of these techniques from my own past professors who managed to engage my interest even when the course material seemed of little personal value to me.

Students need additional motivation

While these methods have proven useful in increasing engagement during in-class lectures, they don’t help motivate students to complete homework assignments, study for tests or maximize effort in projects.

As in-class engagement increased for my students, a disconnect between interaction in lectures and overall academic performance became apparent. Through conversations with many of them, it seemed that although they enjoyed and understood the lecture topics, they simply lacked the motivation to work for more than a minimally acceptable grade.

Lack of motivation was a particular problem for students taking courses as electives to satisfy another degree program. In order to increase the level of engagement with these students — and hopefully all of my students — I began looking for ways to offer extrinsic motivation.

I drew inspiration from video games. In the newly released Destiny 2, players score achievements marked by badges (shown in the upper center of the screen). This reward system can also be applied to education.

Video games structure motivation

In video games, badges and “achievements” — recognition for completing minor, secondary or non-essential tasks or goals that do not inherently affect the game’s outcome — are a staple tool to reward players for accomplishments. For example, the highly cooperative Overcooked rewards players who work together to complete a level using the same controller.

Another game, the story-driven Ori and the Blind Forest, offers 57 achievements ranging from progress tracking such as “Complete the prologue” to skill-highlighting, including “Finish the game in under three hours” and “Find all secrets.”

Examples abound in all types of games, from puzzle and adventure games like the ones I mentioned, to fast-paced, action-oriented games that test one’s hand-eye co-ordination and reflexes. Whatever the genre, achievements are an established means of motivating players to keep playing and to push their skills further. They are also a motivational technique that many students are familiar with given the rates at which they are playing video games.

In the game Ori and the Blind Forest, title character Ori (centre) braves obstacles and foes to earn recognition or achievements, which help to motivate players. Handout

Non-game software and mobile phone app developers frequently use badges and achievements to promote sales and increased use. These offer the same core benefits as in games: a sense of accomplishment, a concrete goal to strive for and ways to foster commitment to achieve that goal.

Use of badges, leaderboards and even quests to promote positive behavioural change is perhaps most evident in the fitness software market.

Gamifying the education experience

Based on these models, a Laurentian computer science student developed a custom website to support a trial of these simple gamification elements in my first-year computer science course. The website allowed creation of badges based on several categories: assignments, labs, tests, social interactions and miscellaneous (for badges that didn’t fall into any the previous categories).

All of the badges were colour-coded so that students could easily identify and group them by category. The specific criteria for each achievement was designed to reward positive academic or social behaviour, denoted by a title and brief description of the task required to earn the badge. Examples of badges are shown in the image below.

In addition, the site included a leaderboard to promote friendly competition between students. Badges were assigned a point value, based on the perceived difficulty of the required task. The sum of a student’s badge points — rather than the number of badges collected — gave students a relative rank on the leaderboard.

Sample badges for academically and socially related tasks.

To protect students’ identities, they used a nickname and could opt out of the leaderboard altogether. Aside from the ranking and point sums on the voluntary leaderboard, all information on the site was private between users.

Tracking success

Perhaps the biggest success was the overwhelmingly positive student response to the system. In a brief survey at the end of the courses, over 75 per cent of the students who responded said the system was enjoyable, engaging, and that they would like to see it implemented in other courses. More importantly, students felt it helped motivate them to work harder on assignments, labs and test preparation.

Although a clear increase in academic performance cannot be quantified from the original trial, having students report a qualitative increase in motivation is an important step in the right direction.

Approximately 20 per cent of the initial badges had titles and descriptions that were hidden from the students. The goal of these “mystery” achievements was to provide an element of surprise, with details of the badge revealed only when the task was accomplished and the badge awarded.

It was my hope that the first students who uncovered these tasks would then discuss them with other students, thereby increasing the social aspect around the badge system. Instead, 68 per cent of students said in the exit survey that mystery badges were their least favourite feature.

Unexpected outcomes and the future

It appears as though students value the goal-setting nature of the badges over their potential as “fun” surprise elements. Though future implementations are likely to include mystery achievements, the number will be significantly reduced.

Perhaps the most discouraging result was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm when the badge site was used with a subset of the same students in the followup course. The motivational properties of simpler gamification systems — particularly badges and achievements — tend to diminish over time. This effect may be mitigated or perhaps even eliminated with further trials, data collection and improved integration of established positive behaviour modification techniques.

Despite some concerns, many professors, teachers and researchers believe that even this type of simple gamification remains a valuable engagement tool. It is not a standalone cure for low student engagement nor poor academic performance. Instead, it capitalizes on students’ nearly universal experience with video games and their reward systems to provide a source of extrinsic motivation that supplements effective lecturing and solid pedagogy.

The survey results from the first trial clearly indicate that students enjoyed the experience and felt that it did have a positive impact as an extrinsic motivator.

We are continuing this work with badges and achievements, with more colleagues and their courses participating. This will be accompanied by a formal study to quantify changes in academic performance. Our intention is to improve the current gamification system through iteration, expansion and student feedback.

Aaron Langille, Mathematics, Computer Science, Science, Engineering, Architecture, Laurentian University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.