The emergence of the EU Fifth Freedom concept Essay Example

highlights that policy documents can have different meanings and effects on readers.In this assignment, I am conducting an analysis of policy and a literature review to understand the historical reasons behind EU policies related to the Fifth Freedom concept. The importance of analyzing these effects and revealing the ideological processes behind text production is emphasized by Codd (1988 p.235). Furthermore, my objective is to offer a critical perspective on current thinking in this field.

This passage falls under the "analysis of policy content" category mentioned in the table above. As previously mentioned, the goal of this assignment is to serve as the foundation for a larger research project that would examine the implementation of the documented policy within a specific context (e.g. national, Irish). Codd argues that policy documents can be deconstructed into multiple constitutional components to separate the process of creating the text, as well as the organization of the discussions that form it, and the linguistic strategies it employs to conceal any contradictions or inconsistencies within its underlying ideology (Codd, 1988 p.245). However, this assignment only takes this analysis process to a certain extent - it aims to identify the various discussions (and related literature) found within key policy documents related to the concept of the Fifth Freedom.

In the educational policy literature, there has been a lack of focus on research methodology, with commentary and review dominating over empirical research (Taylor, 1997, p.23). Taylor (1997, p.33) suggests that policy texts should be analyzed within their context and in relation to their impact on policy spheres. To pursue this as a research topic, Critical Discourse Analysis would need to be employed for a more rigorous

form of analysis. For this assignment's methodology, I followed a specific process: Firstly, I identified appropriate policy documents to source and analyze by locating the initial Commission communication document mentioning the term "5th freedom". Then, I found EU-level documentation referencing this initial paper to create a chronological overview of the discourse surrounding the topic. Next, I extracted the main concepts from each related policy document and discovered additional papers and communications that elaborated on various aspects of the core papers. The text below summarizes vital literature discussed in EU papers' constructs.A comprehensive literature review was carried out for each country to identify the key elements related to the Fifth Freedom. The purpose of this review was to showcase the theoretical and critical basis for these elements.

The production of thematic construction was the final step in constructing this assignment paper, which allows the reader to review the EU discourse and related literature for each of the chief characteristics of the Fifth Freedom concept.

The Emergence of the EU Fifth Freedom Concept:
In April 2007, EU Science and Research Commissioner Janez PotoA?nik introduced a Green Paper (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b) that outlines the necessary actions for achieving a fifth freedom within the EU. This would strengthen the European Research Area (ERA) and support the European Knowledge Society, where research, education, training, and innovation are fully utilized to meet the economic, social, and environmental goals of the EU and its citizens (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b p.2). Canibano et al. (2008) support this notion by stating that the free circulation principle, which has been extended from goods to services, capital, and labor within the European integration process,

is now being applied specifically to a subgroup of the labor force (researchers) in order to create "a research and innovation equivalent of the common market for goods and services" (Canibano et al., 2008 p.17).The Green Paper initiated a consultation process aimed at improving the ERA. It acknowledges that while the ERA has become a crucial reference for research policy in Europe, there is still much work to be done in order to fully establish it (Commission of the European Communities, 2007b p.2).

The green paper sets out six key characteristics that are necessary to meet the needs of the scientific community, industry, and citizens:

• An equal flow of competent research workers
• World-class research substructures
• Excellent research establishments
• Effective knowledge-sharing
• Well-coordinated research programmes and precedences
• A broad gap of the European Research Area to the universe

According to Potonik, the goal is not to create new initiatives for every question raised by the green paper, but rather to create the right environment for the European Research Area (ERA) to thrive.
The concept of the "fifth freedom" was revisited in a communication from the European Commission in November 2007. The Commission states that in order to strengthen the Lisbon Strategy and support concepts like the EU Knowledge Triangle, more efforts are needed to promote free movement of knowledge and innovation within the single market. The Knowledge Triangle refers to the integration of research, education, and innovation, particularly in terms of private and social returns.The Commission

has initiated a public consultation to gather feedback from various entities, including the EU Member States, Associated Countries, European Parliament, European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions.

A total of 685 questionnaire responses were received from the audience, which were conducted online. In addition, there were 145 free formatted responses by the end of 2007 (Commission of the European Communities, 2008g). This resulted in the identification of five new ERA initiatives to be launched in 2008:
1. A European research workers' passport for mobility and career development
2. The management of IPR in public research administrations
3. Moving towards more joint scheduling and programs
4. Establishing a legal model for pan-European research substructures
5. Developing a policy model for international science and technology cooperation

It is noteworthy that while most respondents expressed the need for Europe to "speak with one voice" in multilateral initiatives, countries like Ireland, UK, and the Netherlands had doubts about its effectiveness. This led to the conclusion that there is a need for greater coherence between the policy objectives of the EU and those of regional and international organizations (Commission of the European Communities, 2008g p.83). Further research is required to analyze how different countries understand, react to, and implement these five ERA initiatives.

In April 2008, Curates for Competitiveness (Research) participated in a meeting that resulted in the establishment of the 'Ljubljana Process'.The administration of ERA should adhere to certain rules, as outlined in the Lisbon Partnership for Growth and Jobs. This includes being connected to areas such as education, innovation, and other policies. All stakeholders, including regional governments, universities, research administrations, civil society, and businesses should be fully involved in ERA administration.

A shared vision of ERA should be achieved through defining monitoring indicators and evaluation criteria. The development of ERA is based on a long-term partnership between Member States and the Commission, involving relevant Community, national, and joint initiatives. The goal is to simplify and improve coherence and effectiveness in ERA development (Slovenian Presidency of the EU, 2008 p.2). In May 2008, the European Council officially documented the administration model for ERA (Council of the European Union, 2008a). It stated that removing barriers to the free movement of knowledge and creating a "5th freedom" is essential for becoming a modern and competitive economy. This involves actions such as enhancing cross-border mobility for research workers, students scientists,and university staff; making the labor market for European research workers more open; implementing higher education reforms;and promoting intellectual property from public research organizations.The Council of the European Union (2008a p.6-7) aims to promote open access to knowledge and innovation, advance scientific excellence, establish new world-class research facilities, and encourage mutual recognition of qualifications.

The text below introduces the five ERA enterprises mentioned earlier in this section, but now distributed across more items. While the concept of the fifth freedom has been well received in Europe (Roshmann, 2009; Olds and Robertson, 2008), it is important to note that critics like Meng-Hsuan Chou argue that "the increased political interest should not contradict the notion that ERA and its doctrine of 'free movement of knowledge' is progressive" (Chou, 2010 p.3) and that concepts such as a pan-European program for science, research, and education cooperation have existed since 1973 when it was first proposed by Research Commissioner Ralf Dahrendorf (Chou, 2010). Gusmao (2001) states that

there are four aspects of European research policy that need to be considered as a unified entity: "(1) the policy pursued by the EU; (2) policies carried out by large organizations for scientific cooperation; (3) the directives that guide incentive programs for multilateral cooperation... (4) the national research policies of member states" (Gusmao, 2001 p.384), and often EU policy does not aim to ensure collaboration in research, but rather "the research activities undertaken within the EU... constitute platforms for coordinating European effort in the field in question" (Gusmao, 2001 p.386).Although this section of the assignment offers a detailed account of the development of the fifth freedom construct, it appears that the construct itself is not innovative. Instead, it appears to primarily be a renaming of existing EU-wide concepts and programs.

The following sections discuss and analyze the core initiatives outlined in the fifth freedom banner, as well as the actions specified by the CEC for each. The aim is to provide historical context and highlight the underlying philosophy for each initiative.

A European research workers ' passport for mobility and career development

In order to support the ERA initiative focused on A European research workers ' passport for mobility and career development, the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) released a communication document titled 'Better careers and more mobility: a European partnership for researchers' (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e). This document urges member states, councils, and committees to commit to the proposed actions and implement national action plans by early 2009, which will outline ways to achieve the goals of the partnership.

The communication document highlights four key areas to be addressed in the national

action plans. The first area deals with 'open recruitment and portability of grants' and aims to address issues where the Bologna Process and European Qualifications Framework have not had the anticipated impact.The paper suggests that institutions still lack understanding of the process and criteria for recognizing academic and professional qualifications from other states or sectors (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e p.7). Furthermore, it points out that while most private and some public sector research employers openly advertise vacancies, the majority of vacancies are only advertised internally or at best at national level (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e p.7). Another important point highlighted in the paper is that EU project grants are primarily awarded to institutions rather than individual researchers, and these grants cannot be transferred to another institution if the researcher decides or needs to relocate for the benefit of the research being conducted.

The text proposes a set of priority action points to address the issues mentioned above. The second country that needs to be tackled relates to societal security and auxiliary pensions for nomadic research workers. According to Morani-Foadi, there are several barriers to mobility including taxation, pension, and recognition of qualifications that still exist and hinder the process (Morano-Foadi, 2005 p.155). The Commission's communication document highlights a general lack of awareness, among researchers and their employers, regarding their social security rights at the EU level. It suggests that improved access to existing information should be provided in conjunction with the EU Job Mobility Action Plan (Commission of the European Communities, 2007c), which aims to improve existing legislation and implementation practices concerning social security, taking into account newer forms of mobility (Commission

of the European Communities, 2008e p.8). The document proposes a number of priority actions to be implemented in member states. These actions aim to provide access to more targeted social security information, establish bilateral and multilateral agreements for the benefit of researchers, incorporate rules to facilitate researcher mobility and social security between member states and third countries, and promote pan-European pension schemes for researchers (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e p.9).

The third priority action focuses on improving employment and working conditions. It addresses issues such as the existence of a two-tier workforce, with temporary contracts for young researchers and limited job mobility for senior researchers on permanent contracts. It also emphasizes the importance of achieving a balance between professional and family life. This priority action deals with the perception that senior researchers have little incentive to change career paths, as their advancement is currently based on seniority rather than performance. Additionally, it acknowledges the gender imbalance in senior research positions and recognizes the lack of reconciliation between personal and private life, particularly for female researchers. Finally, this action discusses the significant salary disparities across the European Research Area (ERA) for similar research positions.

For each of the subjects mentioned above, a set of precedence actions is specified. Ackers (2004) discusses the balance between professional and household life in terms of one partner taking the precedence role in professional activity, while the other partner (usually the wife/mother) takes a secondary role as the 'trailing partner'. However, it is not always the case that the male partner takes this precedence role, but Ackers' literature review highlights that this seems to be the general situation. According to Ackers, insufficient

attention is paid to "the impact of mobility on the quality and nature of women's employment and their progress within preferred career paths."

The impact of mobility on the advancement of scientific disciplines is not well understood in current research and policy, according to Ackers (2004, p.190). Similarly, Nerdrum and Sarpebakken (2006) found that one third of immigrant researchers chose to work in Norway for personal or relationship reasons. This lack of consideration for work-life balance and gender representation in research institutions is also highlighted in the Commission communication papers (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e, p.9). The papers suggest that Member States and PROs should strive for gender equality in selection and support bodies and ensure a balance between work and personal life for both male and female researchers. The fourth action point addresses the need for European researcher training and skills development, acknowledging that many researchers in Europe are still trained in traditional academic settings rather than business environments (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e, p.10).According to the specified precedence actions, member provinces must create and support "national accomplishments agendas" to ensure that researchers possess the necessary skills for contributing to the knowledge-based economy. Additionally, member provinces should reinforce the connection between academia and industry by supporting the placement of researchers in industry for training purposes. They should also encourage industry funding of PhDs and involvement in curriculum development. (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e)

While there is a widely held belief that mobility improves research performance, critics such as Canibano et al. (2008) argue that the relationship between mobility and research performance has rarely been studied empirically. They suggest that this relationship, along with

collaboration, is more of a perception than a proven fact. Canibano et al. (2008) also note that it is difficult to directly link mobility with research performance, as both mobility and changes in research results can occur multiple times throughout a researcher's career. Therefore, it is challenging to attribute specific outcomes to specific moves.

Previous studies have analyzed CV information and publication forms in an attempt to determine the relationship between a researcher's mobility and their involvement in internationally funded collaborative projects (Canibano et al., 2008). Findings in this area suggest that there is a significant relationship between a researcher's mobility and their participation in collaborative projects. This includes a significant number of participants who indicate they will continue to collaborate with certain partners even after the completion of the research project (Gusmao, 2001, p.392). Gusmao also argues that these collaborative networks will give rise to a new generation of "European-minded" scientists who will play an increasingly important role in European scientific and technological activities. Another perspective from Morano-Foadi (2005) suggests that for many researchers, mobility is more of a necessity than a choice due to the demands of career progression in research, and adds that the longer a researcher is away from their home country, the more difficult it becomes to return.

According to Gill (2005), there is a possibility that after a period of research abroad, mobile researchers can become "locked out" of their home country or "locked into" the host country, resulting in a potential brain drain for their country of origin. This means that there could be a net loss of knowledge from the country or region. Morano-Foadi (2005) adds that in many

EU countries, such as Italy and Portugal, the academic system heavily relies on maintaining networks and personal connections. Therefore, mobile researchers who are away for a significant amount of time may find it difficult to reintegrate into their home country's academic circles. In some cases, researchers sent abroad have a better chance of reintegration compared to those who choose to go mobile on their own. Nerdrum and Sarpebakken (2006) support this idea by stating that in certain countries like Norway, returning home is more or less automatic, while in others, researchers need to secure grants and scholarships in order to do so.

Stein (2002) mentions that coherence is a key aspect of S;A;T co-operation policy in Europe. According to Stein (2002, p.468), certain mobility strategies offer support to research workers from less advantaged parts of Europe when they return to their home country. Nerdrum and Sarpebakken argue that this exchange of skilled workers can lead to a mutually beneficial situation, as the research worker gains experience by collaborating with peers in another country and through the visit itself. However, they also note that depending on whether the mobile research worker was encouraged or compelled to conduct research abroad, an imbalance in knowledge acquisition may occur. In other words, the researchers might benefit more from learning from the research group than vice versa (Nerdrum and Sarpebakken, 2006, p.226).

The Commission's communicating papers propose that researchers should be able to maintain their home country's social security benefits and export benefits obtained abroad when they return to their home country (Commission of the European Communities, 2008e). Previously, Commission grant programs allowed researchers to work abroad to bring knowledge back home

(Morano-Foadi, 2005). The lack of job opportunities for researchers in some EU countries further motivates mobility, as researchers seek research funding (Morano-Foadi, 2005).

In April 2008, the CEC issued a "Recommendation on the management of intellectual property rights in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organizations," in support of the ERA initiative for managing IPR in public research organizations. This was later adopted by the Competitiveness Council in May of the same year (Commission of the European Communities, 2008a; Council of the European Union, 2008b).The recommendation outlines rules that public research administrations in member provinces should follow in three thematic areas. It also states that all member provinces must report to the Commission every six months, starting from July 2010, about the measures they have taken to support the recommendation. The first thematic area focuses on developing an internal intellectual property policy for Public Research Organisations (PROs) that includes clear rules for staff and students, which should be made publicly available.

The text discusses how IP generated in PROs (Public Research Organizations) should be identified and exploited, and how staff should be rewarded for their active involvement in executing the IP policy. It also focuses on how generated IP should be publicized and disseminated (Commission of the European Communities, 2008a). Interestingly, Polt et al. (2001) emphasized the importance of research workers' mobility between academia and industry in circulating new knowledge generated in public science. They noted that this mobility allows for the transfer of silent knowledge, builds trust, and establishes personal networks (Polt et al., 2001, p.254). Additionally, the second thematic area, 'Principles for a knowledge transfer policy,' outlines the

need for PROs to have dedicated knowledge transfer services to support research staff. It suggests creating a policy that promotes the creation of knowledge licenses or by-products and implementing policies for sharing any research gains obtained through knowledge transfer activities.

According to Polt et Al. (2001), there is a general observation referred to as the "European paradox." This paradox highlights the perception of a gap between strong performances in science and a declining industrial competitiveness. Dosi et Al.

(2006) states that the paradox of EU states playing a leading global role in scientific output but lagging behind in converting this strength into wealth-generating inventions is created, in part, by the process of reporting to and by the European Commission itself, rather than the actual reported data. (Polt et al., 2001) note that a match of knowledge supply and demand is necessary to further deep industry-science relations. They also present the, possibly cynical, view that the main reason for PROs to participate in collaborative research with industry is to gain support, while companies are seeking knowledge to strengthen their competitive advantage.

Polt et Al. (2001) present several issues that national models for collaboration need to address. Firstly, collaboration incentives should be incorporated into long-term S;T policies. Secondly, policies for collaboration should consider the missions of public science in the economy and society. Lastly, support is required for researcher mobility, knowledge transfer activities, and research commercialization through start-ups. Many of these concerns can be found in the Commission policy documents related to the fifth freedom. The final thematic area, "Principles regarding collaborative and contract research," discusses issues related to shared research efforts and access to the resulting intellectual property. However,

it should be noted that the content in this section of the CEC document does not introduce anything new and has been discussed in Framework Programme standard pool agreements over at least the past five to ten years.

An example of this can be found in documents such as the European Information ; A ; Communications Technology Industry Association FP7 Consortium Agreement Document Template (Eicta, 2007).

A shift towards greater collaboration in scheduling and programs

To support the ERA initiative of moving towards more joint scheduling and programs, the CEC issued another communication document (Commission of the European Communities, 2008d) which begins by describing how cross-border research at an EU level is not coordinated. For example, "National research programs may unnecessarily duplicate each other from a pan-European perspective and lack the necessary program depth and scope" (Commission of the European Communities, 2008d p.5). The communication document suggests implementing joint schedules to address this issue.