3. Stock-taking of e-Infrastructures in the social sciences and humanities
3.3 Background information on projects
3.3.1 Disciplines represented
The respondents were asked what domain areas were represented by the projects (QB11). Many of the projects were interdisciplinary: only 36 respondents reported that their project had only one discipline, 47 reported 2 disciplines, 32 reported 3 disciplines, 36 reported 4 disciplines, and 67 reported 5 or more disciplines. The diversity of coverage is partially summarized in Table 3.5 in two columns. The first column reports how often the discipline was mentioned as part of a project; the second column weights the discipline proportionately to the number of other disciplines reported in the project (see annotation to Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: Discipline groups represented by projects (as defined by OECD Frascati classification)
Unweighted Weighteda Discipline
Cases in % of all
218 projects Cases
Agricultural Sciences 12 5.5% 2
Engineering and Technology 28 12.8% 7
Electrical engineering, electronic engineering,
information engineering (hardware) 17 7.8% 4
Engineering & technology (civil, mechanical, chemical, materials, environmental or medical engineering, bio- or nanotechnology, others)
19 8.7% 3
Humanities 109 50.0% 54
Archaeology 26 11.9% 8
Art (arts, history of arts, performing arts, music) 42 19.3% 8
History 46 21.1% 11
Languages and literature (excluding linguistics) 35 16.1% 7 Linguistics (including computational linguistics) 45 20.6% 11
Other Humanities 39 17.9% 6
Philosophy, ethics, religion 16 7.3% 2
Medical and Health Sciences 29 13.3% 8
Natural Sciences 142 65.1% 50
Natural sciences (mathematics, physical, chemical,
biological sciences, earth & environmental 45 20.6% 11
Continuation Table 3.5
Unweighted Weighteda Discipline
Cases in % of all
218 projects Cases
Social Sciences 153 70.2% 95
Economics and business 45 20.6% 26
Educational sciences 54 24.8% 13
Political science 37 17.0% 8
Psychology 30 13.8% 6
Social and economic geography, regional science 64 29.4% 20
Sociology 72 33.0% 20
Law 18 8.3% 3
Other 45 20.6% 16
a Proportionate weighting by to the number of disciplines reported in a project. If, for example, a project reports six disciplines, each discipline is weighted by 1/6.
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
While, as expected, the dominant discipline represented is computer and information sciences, there was substantial representation of the four fields identified by the team a priori. Economics was represented in 45 of the projects identified by respondents; sociology in 72; geography and regional science in 64;
linguistics in 45 and archaeology in 26.16 3.3.2 Project funding and size
The funding source for the projects is dominated by research councils and
foundations (QC1): 124 respondents cited that as their main source of funding, 27 cited the European Union, 48 national and state research or education ministries, 80 cited their home institution and 29 cited private foundations; the “other” category was quite varied (see Annex I.4, p. 193). 118 respondents provided information on their total budget; 71 on their annual budget (QC3). The median project was initially funded at just under 335,000 Euros; the median annual budget was just over 122,000 Euros. Although the average project was funded for 36 months (QC4), the length of the projects varied substantially. About 26% of projects lasted less than 18 months, 52% between 19 and 36 months, and 23% more than 36 months.
The typical project has quite a substantial staff of about 14 individuals, of whom 5 are scientists, 3 are graduate students and 6 are other, technical and administrative and supporting staff.
Funding/staff and geographical location of the project
There were substantial differences across regions in the average amount of initial funding differs to a large amount (QC10). The respondents from continental Europe reported the largest initial budgets, followed by the US, the UK and then the other countries (c.f. Figure 3.9).17 The scheduled funding period also differed among the regions, with continental European projects lasting the longest at an average of 37 months, compared with 34 months in the USA, 26 months in the UK, and 30 months in the rest of the world.
16 Note that because there can be multiple respondents per project, this does not denote unique projects.
17 To calculate the budgets we used the exchange rate from January, 1st 2007 as published on
Figure 3.9: Initial funding of the projects in Euro (median values)
€ 307
€ 106 € 100
€ 150
€ 93
€ 160
€ 522
€ 734
€ 0
€ 200
€ 400
€ 600
€ 800
UK Continental Europe USA Rest of the world in 1'000 €
Total funding Annual funding
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
Respondents also provided information about the number of people working on their projects, and this differed by region of the respondent (QB12). US projects tended to be quite large (see Figure 3.10): 20 people on average, with typically 7 scientists and 5 graduate students and a substantially larger number of non scientific staff than their European counterparts; UK projects were quite small, averaging around 10 staff, with 4 scientists and just 1 graduate student. The continental European respondents reported average staff sizes – typically 15 staff members including 8 scientists and 4 graduate students.
Figure 3.10: Size of the projects grouped by regions (median personnel data)
10
20
8
8 7
4 1
4
2 15
4 5
0 5 10 15 20 25
UK Continental
Europe
USA Other
countries Total no. of people involved No. of scientists No. of graduated students
disciplines being represented on average, followed by 4.1 disciplines per project in the rest of the work, 3.5 in continental Europe and 2.5 in the U.K.
Funding, staff and field of the project
If we differentiate the projects’ funding by the included fields, we see that linguists’
projects were by far the largest with a total budget of nearly 800’000 € (see Figure 3.11). The large budget of linguistic projects is at least partially due to their long duration of 36 months (see Figure 3.12) but also to their size (see Figure 3.13 on the staff below). Most other fields, namely economics, sociology and geography projects were close to the overall average of roundabout 300’000 €. Archaeology projects just reached about half the average.
Figure 3.11: Average total and annual project budgets in 1000 Euro by field
€ 300 € 296 € 297
€ 776
€ 336
€ 75
€ 200
€ 70
€ 141 € 122
€ 148
€ 151
€ 0
€ 200
€ 400
€ 600
€ 800
Archaeology Economics and business
Sociology Social geography, regional science
Linguistics All cases Total budget Annual budget
Budget in 1000 Euro
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
The annualised data produce a slightly different picture: economics & business administration projects are now the largest with 200’000 € per year, and archaeology and sociology projects are smaller than the average. Archaeology projects are also those with the shortest duration of just around one year and a half (see Figure 3.12).
Figure 3.12: Average project duration in months by field (median)
21
24
30
36 36 36
0 10 20 30 40
Archaeology Economics and business
Sociology Social geography, regional science
Linguistics All cases Duration in months
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
Linguists’ projects had by far the largest number of staff with on average (median) 20 total personnel (see Figure 3.13). Archaeology, economics & business and geography projects had just about average size, whereas sociology projects were somewhat smaller.
Figure 3.13: Average project size (median personnel) by field
Archaeology
Economics and business Sociology
Social geography,regional science Linguistics
Other staff
Graduate students Scientists
Total personnel 0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Data for this figure in appendix I.3, Table A.4.
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
The research intensity, i.e. the percentage of staff with a scientific objective, also varies between the fields as shown in Figure 3.14: in economics & business
projects more than half of the personnel were scientists. The share is notably lower in all the other fields. The role of graduate students is similar in the fields and other staff is most important in archaeology and least important in economics & business projects.
Figure 3.14: Percentages of different personnel categories by field
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Archaeology Economics and business Sociology Social geography,regional science Linguistics
Staff and activity profile of the respondents
It is also interesting to examine how the type of respondent (results from the activity profile analysis, see Section 3.2.2 above) differed by type of project. Not
surprisingly, administrators tended to be reporting on the largest projects (see Figure 3.15). The average size of such projects was about 30 people – twice as many as in projects which were described by the other three groups (researchers, professionals, and scholars).
Figure 3.15: Average project size (median personnel) by activity profiles
Researchers
Professionals
Administrators
Scholars
Other staff
Graduate students Scientists
Total personnel 0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Data for this figure in appendix I.3, Table A.5.
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
Figure 3.16: Percentages of different personnel categories by activity profiles
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Researchers
Professionals
Administrators
Scholars
Scientists Graduate students Other staff Data for this figure in appendix I.3, Table A.5.
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
The research intensity in the different projects varies substantially: only one third of the people working on the project were classified as scientists in projects described
scientists represented about half of the staff. In the same vein, graduate student involvement was proportionally larger in projects described by scholars than in projects described by researchers, administrators or professionals (see Figure 3.16).
Funding/staff and user status of the respondent
Next, we contrasted the size of the projects by the user status, differentiating between current and former e-Infrastructure users. Projects of former users had more non-scientific staff than those of current users (see Figure 3.17). This might indicate that either the e-Infrastructure technology has become easier to use or the responding skills of the users have become better.
Figure 3.17: Average number of people involved in the project by user status of the respondent (median values)
15
12
5 6
3 4
0 5 10 15 20
Current users Former users
Total no. of people involved No. of scientists No. of graduated students Current users N=136, former users N=25.
Source: AVROSS WP2 survey.
Projects from former users were also larger in terms of the initial budget, at a median level of €470,000, compared with €373,000 for current users.18 Not surprisingly, larger budgets and larger staff are closely related.