1 / 21

National Science Fund - state of the art and trends

National Science Fund - state of the art and trends. Albena Vutsova. Some details:. Established in 1990 Functioning like second flow of government support-although operating with insufficient budget

dinesh
Download Presentation

National Science Fund - state of the art and trends

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Science Fund -state of the art and trends Albena Vutsova

  2. Some details: • Established in 1990 • Functioning like second flow of government support-although operating with insufficient budget • Way for restructuring the scheme of research funding-from institutional to project /program one on the competitive base • Managing bodies – consisting of eminent scientists • Member of ESF since 2001

  3. Public research funding in Bulgaria Government Research Institutes National Science Fund Universities Universities Research Institutes Labs Researchers

  4. National Science Fund Progressively increasing allocations by years

  5. Ambitious and Goals: • Quality in focus • Aiming at high international level research • Milieu for strong competition • More intra and external integration • Pathway to the applied issues • Creating skilled new generation of researchers • Strong accountability

  6. Research areas of interest • Natural Sciences • Medical Sciences • Bio and agricultural sciences • Engineering and Informatics sciences • Social Sciences and Humanity

  7. Activity and Success Rate by Sciences

  8. Routine activities: • Supporting scientific research – special emphasis on scientific excellence • Fostering young researchers • Fostering international research cooperation • Developing the evaluation practices

  9. Routine calls: • Annual competition sessions-covering all research fields • Yong scientists competition • Young talents competition • National programs competition – targeted approach • Bulgarian periodicals competition

  10. Cost Objects – External Product Groups Research Projects Annual Scientific Prizes grants Research Infrastructure EncouragingYoung Researchers and Young Talents Research Programmes Encouraging Research in Universities

  11. New instruments: • Competitions fostering universities research • Competitions fostering research mobility • Competitions fostering national research potential: • Infrastructure • Human potential • Centers of competence • Joint projects under bilateral schemes Good practices - bilateral schemes with: • Academic Exchange German Office (DAAD) • French Ministry of Youth, Education and Research –RILA program

  12. Distinctiveness: • Knowledge or strategic driven research • Open to applications • More basic research

  13. Applicable approaches: • Bottom up approach- curiosity and knowledge driven approach- regular competitions • Top-down approach- strategic oriented- national programs

  14. What we pay for: • Research grants towards research entities • Basic payments for: • Temporary permanent staff • Consumables • Equipment • Business trips • Overhead

  15. Managerial and Complementary bodies: • Executive council – 10 members • Research expert panels- 7 • Secretariat • Add hoc panels and expert groups • Independent evaluators NB! Principleof mandate for each structure is envisaged

  16. Applied methods for evaluation • Ex-ante – level of performance – good • Interim- each year of the project progress- creeping to good • Ex-post – insufficient performance and slim elements of track records yet

  17. Criteria for evaluationgeneral • Addressing the quality and originality of the scientific contents • The competence of researchers to perform the proposed work • Significance of the research problem • Utilization and impact of the results • Possible synergy effect and added value

  18. Evaluation Circle evaluator Scores project Expert panel raporteur evaluator ranking

  19. Strong points: Identifying major issues of economy and society importance Facilitating inter and international linkages among researchers Availability of independent evaluation Strong ex-ante evaluation Lack of heavy administrative burden Weak points: Lack of mix funding sources and donators Yet Insufficient budget Insufficient number of international evaluators Insufficient ex-post evaluation Lack of sufficient track records about project result and follow up (s) An attempt for analysis

  20. Lessons learnt: • Strong prioritization • Striving to effective research • Fostering research networking • Clear accountability

  21. Many thanks for your attention and patience ! www.nsfb.net a.vutsova@minedu.government.bg

More Related