MORE4 : support data collection and analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers.
Date: 2021-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Subjects: data collection, digital technology, knowledge economy, labour market, organisation of research, professional career, research staff, technological change

MORE4 study 

Support data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers

PPMI, IDEA Consult and WIFO 
February 2021 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MORE4 study: Support data collection and analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths of 
researchers 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Research & Innovation 
Directorate A — Directorate A — ERA & Innovation 
Unit A.3 — R&I Actors and Research Careers 
Email:   RTD-ACTORS-AND-CAREERS@ec.europa.eu 
RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Manuscript completed in February 2021. 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the 
European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. 

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). 

PDF  

ISBN 978-92-76-34099-7 

doi: 10.2777/645537 

KI-02-21-455-EN-N 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 

© European Union, 2021 

The  reuse  policy  of  European  Commission  documents  is  implemented  based  on  Commission  Decision  2011/833/EU  of  12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this 
licence 
document 
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any  
changes are indicated. 

is  authorised  under  a  Creative  Commons  Attribution  4.0 

(CC-BY  4.0) 

International 

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission  may need to be sought directly 
from the respective right holders. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Support data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers 

PPMI, IDEA Consult and WIFO 

2021 

 Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 
European Research Area 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 6 

Policy-relevant findings and implications of MORE4 and the previous MORE studies .................. 6 
Key figures and findings of the MORE4 study ..................................................................... 14 

Part 1. Study, policy context and concepts ..................................................................... 35 

1. 

Introduction............................................................................................................ 36 

1.1. 
1.2. 
1.3. 
1.4. 

Objectives of the MORE4 study.............................................................................. 36 
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 37 
Guide to the structure of the report ....................................................................... 38 
Guide to the interpretation of the results ................................................................ 39 

1.4.1.  Strengths and weaknesses of using surveys to analyse researchers´ mobility patterns

39 

1.4.2.  Characteristics and interpretation of the MORE4 data ........................................... 41 

2.  Policy context ......................................................................................................... 45 

3.  Conceptual framework ............................................................................................ 50 

Part 2. Comparative and policy-relevant analysis ........................................................... 54 

4.  Human resources: researchers ............................................................................... 55 

4.1. 
4.2. 

Key findings ........................................................................................................ 56 
EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings .................................................. 59 

5.  Human resources: PhD training .............................................................................. 63 

5.1. 
5.2. 

Key findings ........................................................................................................ 64 
EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings .................................................. 69 

6.  Recruitment, career progression and career paths ................................................. 78 

6.1. 
6.2. 

Key findings ........................................................................................................ 79 
EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings .................................................. 86 

7.  Working conditions ................................................................................................. 94 

7.1. 
7.2. 

Key findings ........................................................................................................ 95 
EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 102 

8. 

International mobility during PhD stage ............................................................... 107 

8.1. 

Key findings ...................................................................................................... 108 

8.1.1.  Mobility profile (PhD)...................................................................................... 108 
8.1.2.  Motives and barriers (PhD) ............................................................................. 114 

8.2. 

EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 117 

9. 

International mobility after PhD stage .................................................................. 126 

9.1. 

Key findings ...................................................................................................... 127 

9.1.1.  Mobility profile ............................................................................................... 127 
9.1.2.  Motives and barriers ....................................................................................... 129 
9.1.3.  Effects of mobility .......................................................................................... 132 

9.2. 

EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 134 

10.  Other forms of international exchange ................................................................. 140 

10.1.  Key findings ...................................................................................................... 140 

10.1.1. 
10.1.2. 
10.1.3. 
10.1.4. 

Short-term mobility ................................................................................ 141 
Short travel for conferences, meetings and visits ........................................ 142 
International collaboration ....................................................................... 143 
International virtual mobility .................................................................... 144 

10.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 144 

11.  Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration ......................................................... 149 

2 

 
 
 
11.1.  Key findings ...................................................................................................... 150 

11.1.1. 
11.1.2. 

Interdisciplinary mobility ......................................................................... 150 
Interdisciplinary collaboration .................................................................. 152 

11.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 154 

12.  Intersectoral mobility ........................................................................................... 158 

12.1.  Key findings ...................................................................................................... 159 

12.1.1. 
12.1.2. 

Intersectoral mobility .............................................................................. 159 
Intersectoral collaboration ....................................................................... 163 

12.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 164 

13.  Attractiveness of the European Research Area ..................................................... 172 

13.1.  Key findings ...................................................................................................... 173 
13.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 178 

14.  Gender .................................................................................................................. 184 

14.1.  Key findings ...................................................................................................... 184 

14.1.1. 
14.1.2. 
14.1.3. 
14.1.4. 
14.1.5. 
opportunities 192 
14.1.6. 
14.1.7. 

Links with gender-equality goals and limitations ......................................... 185 
PhD studies ........................................................................................... 186 
Female labour market participation in research .......................................... 187 
Gender-balanced representation in all levels of staff ................................... 191 
Gender-related discrimination against researchers and the provision of equal 

Parenthood, work-life balance and research careers .................................... 198 
Financial situation and gender income gap ................................................. 203 

14.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings ................................................ 207 

Part 3. Policy implications and recommendations for further research ........................ 212 

15.  Overarching policy implications ............................................................................ 213 

15.1.  Attractiveness of the ERA: global awareness of drivers of attractiveness meets 
heterogeneity in national research systems ...................................................................... 213 
15.2.  Lessons for optimal knowledge exchange and circulation through researcher mobility 221 
15.3.  Achieving gender equality in science .................................................................... 228 
15.4.  Reflections on current policy instruments ............................................................. 232 

16.  Recommendations for further research ................................................................. 241 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Perception of career progression by country, 2019 ..................................................... 80 
Table 2: Individual satisfaction with access to research facilities and the balance between teaching 
and research, by career stage .................................................................................... 101 
Table 3: Main destination countries for >3 month mobility during PhD  (EU28 departing countries)
 .............................................................................................................................. 113 
Table 4: Importance of motives for international PhD degree mobility (EU28) .......................... 114 
Table 5: Importance of motives for >3 month mobility during PhD (EU28) .............................. 115 
Table 6: Importance of barriers for PhD mobility among the non-mobile (EU28)....................... 116 
Table 7: Distribution of actions by type and current status in Priority 3 ................................... 121 
Table 8: Main destination countries for >3 month post-PhD mobility (EU28 citizens)................. 129 
Table 9: Main motives for mobility (2019) ........................................................................... 130 
Table 10: Main barriers to mobility (2019) ........................................................................... 130 
Table 11: Escape, expected and exchange mobility (EU28) .................................................... 132 
Table 12: Share of researchers who have switched to another (sub)field during their academic career, 
by country ............................................................................................................... 152 
Table 13: Types of interdisciplinary collaboration, by country ................................................. 154 
Table 14: Three most frequently cited motives for intersectoral mobility, by destination sector (EU28)
 .............................................................................................................................. 162 
Table  15:  Collaboration  with  academic  researchers  outside  their  own  institution,  or  with  non-
academic researchers. ............................................................................................... 163 
Table 16: Comparison between working outside the EU and working inside the EU as a researcher: 
full set of data of the figures above ............................................................................. 177 
Table 17: Topics and indicators used for the analysis ............................................................ 185 
Table 18: Share of female and male researcher in different fields of science (EU28) ................. 187 
Table 19: Researchers’ perceptions of open, transparent and merit-based recruitment (EU28) ... 193 
Table 20: Researchers’ perceptions of transparent and merit-based career progression (EU28) .. 194 
Table 21: Satisfaction with aspects of the environment for scientific knowledge production, by gender 
(EU28) .................................................................................................................... 196 
Table 22: Factors influencing non-mobility ........................................................................... 197 
Table 23: Perceptions of remuneration compared with that outside academia, by gender and career 
stage (EU28) ............................................................................................................ 206 
Table 24: Objectives of the programmes and dimensions. ..................................................... 234 
Table 25: Dimensions, expectations and indicators ............................................................... 235 
Table 26: General characteristics ....................................................................................... 235 
Table 27: Main indicators .................................................................................................. 236 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the MORE4 study ............................................................. 50 
Figure 2: Conceptual framework in the policy context ............................................................. 53 
Figure 3: PhD supervision structures by country, researchers working inside the EU ................... 67 
Figure 4: Share of researchers receiving training in transferable skills during their PhD, by country 
of graduation .............................................................................................................. 68 
Figure 5: Researchers’ perceptions of recruitment in their home institutions (EU28) ................... 80 
Figure 6: Positive factors for recruitment (upper panel) and career progression (lower panel) in the 
EU28 ......................................................................................................................... 82 
Figure 7: Distribution of researchers across career stages R1 to R4, by country ......................... 85 
Figure 8: Satisfaction with working conditions (EU28) ............................................................. 97 
Figure 9: Perceptions of remuneration by country .................................................................. 99 
Figure 10: Individual satisfaction with research funding, by country ....................................... 101 
Figure 11: International PhD degree mobility, by country of citizenship (departure) .................. 110 
Figure 12: >3 month international mobility during PhD, by country of PhD (departure) ............. 111 
Figure 13: International PhD degree mobility, by country of PhD (destination) ......................... 113 
Figure 14: Impact of national policies on internationalisation at higher education institutions ..... 125 
Figure 15: >3 month international mobility in post-PhD career stages, by country (2019) ......... 128 
Figure 16: Escape, expected and exchange mobility, by country of citizenship (EU28) (2019) .... 132 
Figure 17: Overall effects of mobility experience on research career (EU28) ............................ 133 
Figure 18: <3 month international mobility at post-PhD career stage in the last 10 years, by country 
(2019) ..................................................................................................................... 142 
Figure 19: Participation in conferences, visits and meetings, by frequency (EU28) .................... 142 
Figure  20:  Influence  of  web-based  or  virtual  technology  on  international  behaviour  and  decisions 
(EU28) .................................................................................................................... 144 
Figure 21: Evolution of intersectoral mobility, by country (2016-2019) ................................... 161 

4 

 
 
Figure 22: Comparison between working as a researcher outside and inside the EU (Task 1) ..... 175 
Figure 23: Balance of researchers perceiving the EU as better or worse than other research areas
 .............................................................................................................................. 177 
Figure 24: Awareness of EURAXESS across researcher groups ............................................... 182 
Figure 25: Interest in applying for EU funding across researcher groups .................................. 183 
Figure 26: Training modules in transferable skills, by gender (EU28) ...................................... 186 
Figure 27: Researchers’ age structure, by gender (EU28) ...................................................... 188 
Figure 28: Representation of women, by country.................................................................. 190 
Figure 29: Female representation across career stages in three fields of science ...................... 192 
Figure 30: Gender differences in perceptions of open, transparent and merit-based recruitment, by 
country (EU28) ......................................................................................................... 194 
Figure 31: Gender differences in perceptions of transparent and merit-based career progression, by 
country .................................................................................................................... 195 
Figure 32: Family composition, by gender ........................................................................... 199 
Figure 33: Distribution of researchers by type of contract, type of position and gender (EU28) .. 200 
Figure  34:  Distribution  of  female  and  male  researchers’  types  of  position,  by  parenthood  (EU28)
 .............................................................................................................................. 202 
Figure 35: Career stages and researchers’ types of position, by gender ................................... 203 
Figure 36: Perceptions of remuneration package, by gender and career stage (EU28) ............... 204 
Figure 37: Gender differences in researchers‘ perceptions of remuneration, by country ............. 205 
Figure 38: Gender differences in satisfaction with job and social security attributes, by country . 207 
Figure 39: Ranking of universities by share of publications among the top 1% of publications in terms 
of citations, as well as number of publications (circle size) ............................................. 217 
Figure 40: Example of an indicator- and expert-based assessment of job attractiveness in academic 
research .................................................................................................................. 221 

5 

 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Researchers  and  effective  research  systems  are  at  the  core  of  a  knowledge-based 
economy. Both serve to push forward the frontiers of science and contribute to the use of 
knowledge to achieve economic and societal aims – helping not only to secure growth and 
jobs,  but  also  to  progress  the  digital  and  green  transformation.  The  unified  European 
Research  Area  contributes  significantly  to  the  free  circulation  of  knowledge  and 
researchers,  increasing  research  productivity  and  the  attractiveness  of  research  overall. 
Since  the  launch  of  the  ERA  in  2000,  the  policy  focus  has  more  recently  shifted  to 
deepening the European Research Area (ERA), as outlined in the Communication on the 
new  ERA1.  This  will  further  enhance  the  open  labour  market  for  researchers,  based  on 
transparent and competitive recruitment and facilitating mobility between countries, fields 
and  sectors,  with  a  view  to  enhancing  brain  circulation  and  access  to  excellence.  The 
MORE4 study updates and expands on previous editions to meet the need for indicators 
over time and to assess the impact on researchers of policy measures aimed at increasing 
the attractiveness of research careers in Europe.  

The first part of this executive summary presents the main conclusions of the study and 
its  implications  for  policy  making,  giving  special  attention  to  its  implications  for  the 
attractiveness and development of the ERA. Many of these conclusions reflect the general 
findings of consecutive editions of the MORE studies. The second part provides an overview 
of the main findings of the MORE4 study. 

Policy-relevant  findings  and  implications  of  MORE4  and  the  previous  MORE 
studies 

General cross-study findings 

When knowledge is the principal factor behind competitive advantage, leading to increasing 
competition for talented knowledge workers, the attractiveness of research areas is crucial 
for sustainable and dynamic knowledge economies. 

The consecutive MORE studies have revealed something of a ‘global mindset’ as to what 
makes for an attractive research career in academia. Attractiveness – a factor that shows 
up repeatedly in international mobility indicators – is driven by characteristics of research 
jobs that influence a researcher’s scientific productivity, such as international networking, 
career perspectives and working with high-quality peers. Material working conditions – that 
is,  those  relating  to  remuneration,  pensions,  job  security  and  other  non-science  related 
conditions  –  have  an  influence  on  job  choices,  all  other  things  being  equal,  but  are  not 
decisive factors in decisions regarding jobs or mobility. A shared understanding also exists 

1 European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/era_en  

6 

 
 
                                                 
 
with regard to which skills and training (a PhD) matter for a research career, as well as 
which  factors  matter  for  recruitment  and  career  progression  in  academia.  While 
intersectoral  mobility  between  higher  education  (HE)  institutions  and  private  firms  is 
valued, it is still regarded as less important for recruitment and career progression than 
international and interdisciplinary mobility.  

By  contrast,  researchers  hold  much  more  varied  perceptions  about  the  way  in  which 
countries organise and structure their research systems (i.e. the conditions they provide 
for  researchers  to  achieve  their  maximum  creative  research  potential).  While  diversity 
could have the potential to provide wider opportunities for learning, for example the lower 
levels of satisfaction reported with funding and career perspectives are not a sign that this 
diversity is always positive. 

This discrepancy between a ‘global awareness’ of what matters for a successful research 
career,  and  the  differences  between  national  research  systems,  gives  rise  to  varying 
perceptions of ‘attractiveness’ between countries. It also gives rise to varying patterns of 
international mobility, including asymmetric mobility or ‘brain drain’. This is not pertinent 
not just at global level, between high-income countries with strong research systems and 
lower-income  countries  with  weaker  research  systems,  but  also  at  European  level.  The 
findings  of  the  MORE  studies  continue  to  point  to  persistent  heterogeneity  among  EU 
countries. This heterogeneity is not just a result of different higher education systems and 
career  structures,  but  also  of  economic  development  influencing  public  budgets  for 
research, and hence research funding and salaries of researchers. A continued, and even 
increased,  emphasis  on  the  reform  priorities  for  the  ERA  and  EU  academic 
research systems is hence a clear policy implication of the MORE study findings. This is 
also strongly reflected in the 2020 Communication on deepening the ERA in the context of 
the twin transition to a green and digital economy. Such reform relates not only the ERA’s 
aim of helping weaker research systems to catch up with those at the forefront within the 
EU  (‘widening’),  but  also  to  helping  the  top  EU  research  systems  catch  up  with  the  top 
research systems globally. The nature of the relationship – win-win or win-lose – between 
the  ‘Global  Research  Area’  and  the  ‘European  Research  Area’  will  also  depend  to  some 
extent on how level the playing field will be: Research institutions sharing a similar level 
of attractiveness will lead to knowledge exchange and brain circulation (“win-win”); major 
differences may lead to brain drain, i.e. a win-lose situation. 

In addition to heterogeneity, and in common with previous MORE studies, the MORE4 study 
has identified a number of other policy-relevant findings: 

-  On  the  one  hand,  several  positive  developments  identified  in  MORE3 
continue in MORE4. Among these are the share of externally advertised positions; 
the  agreement  among  researchers  that  recruitment  and  career  progression  are 
merit-based and transparent; the share of fixed-term contracts2; and satisfaction 
with working conditions – although these results need to be interpreted carefully. 

2 Fixed-term contracts are all employment contracts which are not open-ended, i.e. with a set end 
date. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
 
These positive developments at EU level mask wide variations between countries. 
In terms of gender balance, almost equal shares can be seen among researchers in 
the  early  stages  of  their  careers,  but  there  continues  to  be  a  large  imbalance  in 
favour  male  researchers  in  later  career  stages.  As  yet,  it  is  unclear  whether  this 
current balance among early career-stage researchers will be maintained in order 
to  significantly  change  the  ‘glass  ceiling’  phenomenon  observed  in  most  EU 
countries. 

-  Another  important  finding  is  that  research  careers  are  attractive  by  nature. 
This  was  found  in  previous  editions,  and  is  strongly  confirmed  in  MORE4. 
Intrinsically  motivated  researchers  enjoy  the  intellectual  challenge  and  level  of 
responsibility  that  come  with  the  activity  of  research.  Increasing  the  number  of 
researchers is hence less a task of building motivation, but of improving working 
conditions  and  career  paths  so  that  researchers  are  able  to  do  what  they  are 
interested in. Poor working conditions lead to people opting out of a research career 
or to ‘forced’ international mobility. Attractive working conditions and career paths 
can also compensate for dissatisfaction with pay. 

- 

-  Another  finding  that  continues  to  be  valid  across  MORE  studies,  is  that  several 
areas remain in further need of reform. The heterogeneity of research systems 
with  respect  to,  for  example,  conditions  for  research  such  as  funding  or  career 
perspectives has been pointed out at the beginning of this section.  
Interest  in  intersectoral  mobility  or  industry  experience  among  academic 
researchers  currently  working  in  higher  education  institutions  (HEIs)  in  the  EU 
remains low. This relates not only to dual positions or periods of mobility, but also 
to  whether  industry  exposure  or  intersectoral  mobility  is  perceived  as  being 
important  for  PhD  training,  or  whether  entrepreneurship  and  understanding  of 
intellectual  property  rights  (IPR)  are  important  skills  for  a  research  career.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  these  findings  only  reflect  the  perceptions  of  researchers 
currently working in the HE sector, and not those of researchers who have already 
chosen  a  career  in  industry  (unless  they  held  a  dual  position  within  academia). 
Nevertheless, the low level of interest among academic researchers in these types 
of experiences is a finding that should be taken into account. Further research is 
required into whether this lack of interest is simply due to a lack of knowledge about 
career options outside academia, or relates to a limited recognition of this type of 
mobility in the criteria for assessing researchers. It should also be pointed out that 
a similar situation can be seen in non-EU countries.  

-  Transferable  skills  are  regarded  as  very  important  for  career  progression  and 
recruitment  by  more  than  86%  of  researchers  in  the  EU,  ranking  just  below 
international  mobility.  Yet  only  32%  of  PhD  candidates  and  recent  graduates 
indicate that they have actually received training in transferable skills such as time 
and people management, grant writing or communication and presentation skills. 

With regard to perceptions of the attractiveness of the EU as a place to do research, 
several findings emerge robustly in successive MORE studies: 

- 

First,  the  more  advanced  the  non-EU  research  system  from  which  researchers 
come, or in which researchers have worked, the less positively the EU is regarded 
as a place to  carry  out  research. Conversely, researchers with experience in less 
advanced research systems tend to regard the EU more favourably;  

8 

 
 
-  Second, the relative strengths of the EU are perceived as being linked to working 
conditions that do not relate to the research itself: social and job security, pension 
plan and the quality of (undergraduate) education and training. On balance, the EU 
is perceived to be less good than the most advanced research systems in terms of 
working conditions that influence researchers’ scientific productivity: in particular, 
career paths, research funding, and the availability of suitable positions. 

-  Third, in terms of specific countries or regions, the US is perceived as being much 

- 

more attractive than the European Union.  
Fourth, it is important to stress that the above findings are based on results for the 
EU  as  a  whole.  At  the  same  time,  these  findings  are  driven  by  large  differences 
between  Member  States  and  institutions  –  with  certain  institutions  being  very 
competitive at a global level. 

Moving forward: improving the attractiveness of the ERA 

Increasing the attractiveness of the ERA as a place to do research hinges on many factors 
that influence the scientific productivity of researchers. These factors are conceptualised 
in the study as drivers and enablers of attractiveness.  

In both MORE3 and MORE4, research funding and the availability of positions are perceived 
to be the two biggest barriers to mobility. Improving these factors would reduce barriers 
to mobility and make it easier for researchers to become mobile. We therefore term these 
two  areas  enablers  of  attractiveness:  factors  which,  if  improved,  would  no  longer 
represent a barrier to mobility and would instead enable international mobility for all those 
who are interested in it. Further enablers of attractiveness relate to pension portability or 
immigration rules. However, these administrative barriers are not perceived to be the main 
barriers to international mobility.  

The quality of working conditions that influence scientific productivity are the main drivers 
of the attractiveness of jobs in research. These include the opportunity to work with leading 
scientists; long-term career perspectives (e.g. a tenure track model); research autonomy; 
and the balance between teaching and research. All of these factors drive the decisions of 
researchers to become mobile. Indeed, previous evidence from the MORE2 study indicates 
that researchers are “willing to pay”, i.e. to sacrifice some level of salary, in exchange for 
higher-quality working conditions that are relevant to scientific productivity. 

In summary, what is needed are attractive working conditions for researchers that help 
them implement their research agenda. This implies a strong policy focus on boosting 
conditions  for  scientific  productivity  in  all  Member  States  and  at  EU  level,  to  foster 
symmetrical mobility of researchers (brain circulation) and increase the attractiveness of 
the EU as a place to do research, as reflected in the 2020 Communication on the ERA. The 
policy instruments intended to bring about a stronger focus on scientific productivity are 
outlined below, in the section on the implications for the use of policy instruments. First, 
we  provide  an  illustration  regarding  policies  to  encourage  return  mobility.  The  MORE 
studies have consistently shown that the return mobility of researchers is high during the 
early  stages  of  their  careers–  once  they  are  established  or  tenured  at  a  prestigious 
university, it is very difficult to attract them back to their home country. This means that 
efforts to recruit the most promising researchers are more likely to be successful during 

9 

 
 
the early stages of their career, rather than later. In practice, this means offering attractive 
career  perspectives  (e.g.  those  based  on  a  tenure  track  career  model)  to  early-stage 
researchers. Trying to recruit leading researchers during the later stages of their careers 
will be more costly by comparison, as they are less likely to move. This is not to say that 
return  mobility  policies  are  necessarily  ineffective,  but  that  they  cannot  replace  an 
attractive research system for early stage researchers.  

Implications  for  use  of  policy  instruments:  in  terms  of  overall  instrument  use, 
increasing attractiveness of the ERA in terms of conditions for knowledge production can 
follow the four-pronged strategy introduced in MORE3 and confirmed by MORE4:  

- 

Increase  research  funding,  which  continues  to  be  perceived  as  the  working 
condition in the EU with which researchers are least satisfied; many EU initiatives 
are well targeted and evaluated, but their impact remains limited due to low success 
rates in Horizon 2020. While there has been some increase in the budget for Horizon 
Europe,  a  substantial  increase  in  research  funding  will  have  to  come  from  EU 
Member  States.  Without  an  increase  in  research  funding,  it  will  be  difficult  to 
improve  the  availability  of  research  positions  or  research  projects  that  can  be 
funded, leading early-stage researchers to look at research systems offering more 
attractive conditions in that regard. 

-  Ensure  that  this  money  flows  to  the  most  promising  researchers  and 
research  projects,  particularly  within  systems  in  which  the  overall  amount  of 
public research funding is limited. The European Research Council (ERC) and Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) are funding schemes that are clearly successful 
in allocating money to highly promising researchers. 

-  Attract the most talented researchers by offering attractive career paths and 
working conditions for research, as outlined above. Among all working conditions 
in  the  EU,  satisfaction  with  career  perspectives  is  third-lowest;  in  particular, 
researchers perceive career perspectives to be better outside the EU than inside. 
Several  EU  instruments  in  terms  of  an  open  labour  market  (ERA)  and  Open, 
Transparent and Merit-based (OTM) recruitment are also important here. 

-  Ensure  that  knowledge  is  shared  among  policy  makers  as  to  how  the  first 
three  elements  can  be  most  effectively  achieved,  taking  account  of  the 
heterogeneous nature of national research systems across the EU. 

Some specific qualifications need to be added:  

- 

First, satisfaction with the balance between teaching and research is second-
lowest  after  funding.  Research  based  on  MORE2  data  found  that  ‘research-only 
positions’ are actually not a driver of attractiveness, and that even some teaching 
is preferred to no teaching at all. However, too much teaching clearly reduces the 
attractiveness of a job in research.  

-  Second, when a higher share of researchers are in tenured positions, care needs to 
be  taken  to  ensure  incentives  for  scientific  productivity  remain  high 
throughout  the  life-cycle  of  researchers.  This  can  be  achieved,  for  example, 
through the allocation of funding and through a flexible balance between time for 
research and time for teaching. 

10 

 
 
-  An  increased  emphasis  on  drivers  of  attractiveness  does  not  mean  that 
enabling conditions should be overlooked. For instance, one general enabling 
prerequisite for international mobility, or for researchers coming to the EU, is also 
simply  the  ability  to  teach  in  English  –  not  in  terms  of  the  researcher  speaking 
English, but in terms of the university allowing the researcher to teach a course in 
English. Failure to do this often limits the international recruitment of researchers. 
Lastly,  several  EU  instruments  are  in  place  to  improve  social  security/pensions 
portability (EURAXESS, RESAVER). 
In  addition,  synergies  between  European  funding  for  regional  development  and 
research excellence or innovation can be further explored, with respect to the role 
they can play in reducing the innovation gap. 

- 

These general findings across consecutive MORE studies clearly call for a renewed impetus 
to increase the attractiveness of the EU as a place to do research. Such efforts could benefit 
from regular monitoring of the attractiveness  of research systems in terms of attractive 
job offers. Such a regular ‘ranking’ of the attractiveness of research systems with respect 
could  provide  reform  incentives  for  policy-makers,  similar  to  the  rationale  behind  the 
European  Innovation  Scoreboard  (EIS).  It  is  also  in  line  with  EU  initiatives  announced 
within the framework of the 2020 Communication on the ERA, such as monitoring brain 
circulation. 

Policy implications for knowledge exchange and mobility  

Mobility  both  mirrors  and  affects  attractiveness.  International  mobility  drives 
international collaboration, networking and knowledge exchange, which in turn are positive 
for  an  individual’s  research  performance.  At  individual  level,  researchers  regard 
international  mobility  as  having  positive  effects  on  advancing  their  skills  and  scientific 
productivity, as well as on their career progression. The mobility perspectives of a research 
position  therefore  affect  that  position’s  attractiveness.  At  system  level,  international 
mobility  facilitates  capacity  building  and  interconnectivity  within  the  system.  The 
attractiveness of regions, countries or systems for carrying out research is mirrored in their 
mobility  flows.  As  stated  above,  asymmetric  mobility  flows  reflect  the  heterogeneity  in 
national research systems across Europe, and result in unbalanced brain circulation or even 
brain drain issues. Many of the ideas  mentioned above on the attractiveness of the ERA 
will thus also affect international mobility.  

In  particular,  the  study  looks  at  voluntary  mobility,  driven  by  scientific  productivity 
conditions, as the type of mobility that fosters knowledge exchange, return mobility and 
strong  international  networks.  It  is  important  to  continue  policy  efforts  to  improve 
international mobility conditions (enablers and drivers), as well as to foster symmetrical 
mobility  by  reinforcing  the  attractiveness  of  national  research  systems,  with  research 
excellence as its first precondition (as stated above).  

In this context, it is necessary to give attention to the specific situation of  early-stage 
researchers. Even though the drivers of mobility for early-stage researchers are generally 
the same as those for post-PhD researchers, early-stage researchers are at the same time 
more focused on their training and on the availability of research funding and positions. 

11 

 
 
Actions  or  services  can  therefore  be  further  addressed  towards  young  researchers  by 
taking these specific needs into account. 

Interdisciplinary mobility, defined as moves between fields and collaboration with other 
fields,  is  regarded  as  a  positive  factor  for  the  recruitment  and  career  progression  of 
individual  researchers  (less  so  than  international  mobility,  but  more  so  than 
intersectoral mobility). As in the MORE3 study, MORE4 data indicate that researchers who 
have worked in projects funded by an MSCA or an ERC grant tend to display higher levels 
of interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration than the general population of researchers. 
An opportunity exists for these types of programmes and initiatives to promote a clear-cut 
definition,  and  to  continue  monitoring  numbers  and  the  effects  of  interdisciplinarity  in 
research. 

The  concept  of  interdisciplinarity is  also  of  increasing importance  at  system  level.  The 
missions introduced under the mission-oriented policy approach applied in Horizon Europe 
are  expected  to  link  activities  across  disciplines  and  types  of  R&I3.  The  scientific  and 
innovation solutions required to help solve some of the most challenging problems of this 
time will require an interdisciplinary approach, and this will be further supported via the 
Horizon Europe programme. 

Intersectoral mobility is considered a key element in knowledge transfer, at all career 
stages and in all fields. Initiatives promoting intersectoral mobility – and more generally, 
strong interconnectivity with other sectors and other actors – can be part of the solution 
to close the gap between academia and industry. Exposing individual researchers 
to other sectors and research environments will also improve their employability in multiple 
career  paths.  However,  as  indicated  above,  MORE4  findings  show  that  interest  in 
intersectoral  mobility  remains  low  among  researchers  currently  working  in  EU  HEIs.  In 
addition to mobility into other sectors, other forms of exchange and collaboration should 
be fostered to exploit the potential of industry-science linkages and the transfer of ideas. 
Good examples of this include the MSCA co-funding of doctoral programmes and the MSCA 
Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) which are based on flexible intersectoral 
exchanges  (within  Europe)  and  international  exchanges  (with  third  countries)  involving 
highly skilled research and innovation staff. 

Finally,  the  concept  of  Open  Science  is  expected  to  increase  efficiency  and  creativity, 
reinforce  excellence,  and  strengthen  society’s  trust  in  science4.  Reinforcing  an  Open 
Science  culture  begins  with  education  and  training.  At  the  same  time,  one  of  the  main 
challenges involved is to reward and incentivise Open Science contributions in a variety of 
possible  career  paths.  Data  from  the  MORE4  study  show  that  training  in  Open  Science 
approaches is still limited within Europe, and that Open Science practices are less widely 
regarded as positive for recruitment or career progression by individual researchers, when 
compared with most other factors. However, there are indications that funding can play a 
role in better understanding Open Science and encouraging an Open Science culture. The 

3 European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/horizon-europe/missions-horizon-europe_en  
4 COM(2020) 628 final 

12 

 
 
                                                 
 
findings of the MORE4 study thus confirm the need to continue efforts in the field of training 
and assessment frameworks, as well as providing encouragement by integrating elements 
of Open Science into EU research funding instruments, to further support an Open Science 
culture. 

Policy implications for gender equality 

Although international competition for talents has accelerated, to a certain extent women’s 
talents are underexploited in various areas of social and economic life. While a quantitative 
catching-up of women in terms of access to academic positions has been observed  over 
recent  decades,  this  trend  has  stagnated.  Both  the  literature  and  statistics  agree  that 
gender  inequalities  persist  in  terms  of  recruitment  and  career  advancement  in  higher 
education systems.  

The results of MORE4 show that the participation of female researchers in the EU labour 
market has stagnated since 2012. Compared with the share of female researchers at earlier 
career  stages,  women  less  often  occupy  leading  scientific  positions,  with  the  gap 
being particularly high in Health Sciences.  Increasing the share of more senior positions 
held by female researchers may also help them to be more optimistic about their financial 
situation.  Overall,  female  researchers  perceive  their  financial  situation  in  a  more 
pessimistic way than men, and are less likely to be satisfied with their pension plan, social 
and  job  security.  This  is  accompanied  by  an  unequal  distribution  of  contracts  and 
positions to female and male researchers. Although the overall share of researchers with 
permanent  contracts  has  increased  since  2016,  a  gender  gap  still  persists,  with  more 
women than men being on fixed-term contracts. Female researchers are les likely to be in 
full-time positions than their male colleagues, although male researchers are more likely 
to have children. 

Gender equality has been deeply integrated into all types of policies and programmes for 
researchers at EU level for more than 20 years. In March 2020, the European Commission 
presented its `Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’, which addresses various fields in 
which gender inequality still persists. New measures to tackle this will be developed under 
the  Horizon  Europe  European  Innovation  Council.  In  recent  years,  there  has  been 
growing  understanding  that  action  at  legislative  and  institutional  levels  is  crucial  to 
achieving  gender  equality,  which  requires  the  combined  effort  of  various  stakeholders 
including  the  Member  States,  research  funding  organisations  (RFOs)  and  research 
performing  organisations  (RPOs).  These  developments  mark  a  change  in  direction  from 
`fixing women’ to `fixing institutions’ through comprehensive gender equality plans to 
achieve  institutional  change,  as  well  as  `fixing  knowledge’  through  Horizon  2020  and 
various national research funds, to ensure that new research incorporates sex and gender 
analysis.  

Gender monitoring already takes place in the large majority of ERA countries5. However, 
more evidence as to what really leads to structural change in the long run could feed into 

5 A screening of the ERA NAPS shows that gender is addressed through many measures. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
 
mutual  learning  exercises.  Attention  should  be  given  to  evaluating  initiatives  with  a 
longer-term  implementation  and  effect  (e.g.  initiatives  implemented  within  education 
systems, promoting the presence of women in leading positions in science and technology, 
etc.), which might support such structural change.  

Such  action  is  even  more  important,  given  that  existing  gender  inequalities  threaten  to 
worsen as a result of the COV19 pandemic and economic crisis. This worsening has taken 
place within just one year, demonstrating once again how deeply rooted gender inequality 
is  within  various  aspects  of  European  societies.  A  strategy  for  economic  recovery  that 
improves access to inclusive, high-quality early childhood care, education and upbringing 
–  which  is  known  to  compensate  for  social  disadvantages  –  would  bring  socioeconomic 
benefits in the medium and long term, and open up opportunities for women to participate 
fully in the labour market. 

Key figures and findings of the MORE4 study 

The MORE4 study was conducted under the framework contract “PO/2016-06/01 – Lot I – 
Impact  assessment,  evaluations,  and  other  evaluation-related  studies  in  the  field  of 
communication  activities”.  It  provides  an  update  to,  and  further  elaborates  on,  the 
set of indicators reported in the previous MORE studies, thereby addressing the need for 
indicators  needed  to  assess  the  impact  of  policy  measures  introduced  during  the 
implementation of the European Partnership for Researchers (EPR)6. It also reflects upon 
a few new indicators introduced in the MORE4 study to meet emerging policy needs and 
priorities, such as the concept of Open Science and other developments identified in the 
impact assessment of the forthcoming framework programme Horizon Europe. 

The main objective of the MORE4 study is defined as: 

“Carrying out two major surveys and developing indicators to help monitor progress 
towards an open labour market for researchers” 

To  achieve  this  objective,  a  set  of  four  complementary  and  interlinked  tasks  were 
performed by the study team. These have provided detailed insights into researchers, their 
career paths, employment and working conditions. The tasks were as follows: 

-  Task 1: Carry out a survey of researchers currently working in the EU (and EFTA) 

in higher education institutions (HEI); 

-  Task 2: Carry out a survey of researchers currently working outside Europe; 
-  Task  3:  Review  and  update  the  set  of  indicators  developed  for  continuous 

monitoring of relevant trends and progress made in the field; and 

6  COM(2008)  317  final:  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European 
Parliament  of  23  May  2008  “Better  careers  and  more  mobility:  a  European  partnership  for 
researchers”. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
 
-  Task 4: Draft a final report providing policy-relevant comparative analysis on the 

subject matter. 

Box  1  outlines  the  main  dimensions  analysed  in  the  MORE4  study.  First,  the  study 
investigated  the  situation  in  Europe  with  regard  to  human  resources  (number  of 
researchers  and  PhD  candidates  across  countries,  career  stages  and  fields  of  science). 
Second, the study looked into the main characteristics of researchers´ career paths  and 
working conditions. It combined information on these dimensions (e.g. types of contracts) 
with  data  on  researchers´  perceptions  (e.g.  satisfaction  with  career  progression, 
remuneration,  balance  between  teaching  and  research,  etc.).  Third,  the  MORE4  study 
analysed researchers´ patterns of mobility and collaboration. International, intersectoral 
and interdisciplinary types of mobility and collaboration are the main focus of the study. 

Box 1: Main dimensions analysed in the MORE4 study. 

-  Human resources: numbers and training 
-  Career paths 
-  Working conditions 
-  Mobility and collaboration: 
- 
- 
- 

Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration 
Intersectoral mobility and collaboration 

International mobility and collaboration 

The following infographics provide an overview of the key statistics and indicators from the 
MORE4 study. Next, the main findings are summarised in text per dimension of analysis.  

15 

 
 
 
 
Overview of key statistics and indicators 

16 

 
 
 
17 

 
 
 
18 

 
 
 
Human resources: gender equality 

The MORE4 findings confirm the existing literature: a persistent gender imbalance is also 
found within the higher education sector. The participation of female researchers in the EU 
labour market has stagnated since 2012 (currently, 40% of researchers are women). In 
most  EU28  countries,  female  researchers  are  significantly  underrepresented, 
particularly in top scientific positions (28% of R4 researchers are women). Of all grade 
A positions, only 26% are occupied by women and the proportion of women on boards was 
just 31% in 2017. The fact that the proportion of female researchers in early career stages 
is  fairly  high  (51%  of  R1  researchers  are  women)  could  suggest  that  a  more  gender-
balanced situation will emerge at all career stages in the future – or equally, it could be 
interpreted as suggesting the persistence of a ‘glass ceiling’ at which female researchers 
drop out before they reach the higher career stages. 

Among groups of part-time and full-time workers, more men are to be found at high career 
stages than female researchers, pointing to a glass ceiling effect. Moreover, fewer men 
with children work part-time (4%) than men without children (13%). In contrast, there 
is no large difference between female researchers with and without children who work part-
time (11% versus 14%). This hints at a continuous transition of female researchers from 
part-time  work  in  early  career  stages  into  part-time  work  induced  by  childcare 
responsibilities. To a certain extent, higher shares of part-time working mothers than part-
time working fathers are rooted in the unequal distribution of time spent on childcare. 

The  data  from  the  MORE4  EU  HE  survey  suggest  persistent  gender  differences  in 
researchers’ perceptions of recruitment processes between countries. In most countries, 
the share of female researchers who perceive recruitment as open, transparent and merit-
based  is  lower  than  the  respective  share  of  male  researchers.  This  picture  corresponds 
with the fact that female researchers are, on average, more pessimistic about their future 
career prospects than their male colleagues. Only 23% of female researchers feel very 
confident about their future career prospects (men: 34%). More male (81%) than female 
(73%) researchers have permanent contracts. Although the total share of researchers 
with permanent contracts has increased within the EU28 since 2016, the gender gap has 
remained stable. 

Gender  differences  in  the  perception  of  remuneration  vary  greatly  between  countries, 
though in almost all EU countries, the share of female researchers that perceive themselves 
as  well  or  reasonably  well  paid  is  below  that  of  male  researchers.  An  upward  trend  in 
female researchers’ satisfaction with social security, pension system and job security 
can be observed in the EU28 since MORE3. This increase, however, is not specific to female 
researchers, but mirrors an ongoing increase in the average shares of satisfied researchers 
overall, observed since 2012. On average, fewer female researchers than male are satisfied 
with  their  social  security  (a  difference  of  -5  percentage  points);  pension  system  (-8 
percentage points) and job security (-6 percentage points). 

19 

 
 
Box 2: Main findings on gender equality 

Stagnation in female researcher participation in the European labour market 

- 
-  Wide  variation  in  terms  of  gender-balance  between  EU  countries  and  between  age 

groups; 

- 

- 

Significant under-representation of female researchers at the  highest career stages, 
particularly in Health Sciences; 

Improvements in terms of female researchers’ perceptions of recruitment and career 
progression.  However,  in  most  countries  the  share  of  satisfied  female  researchers 

remains below the corresponding share of male researchers.  
-  Women report lower confidence in their future career prospects; 
-  More men than women working in research have children;  
- 

The share of researchers with permanent contracts has increased, but the gender gap 

- 

- 

remains;  
Fewer female researchers regard themselves as ‘well paid’ or ‘reasonably well-paid’, 

irrespective of their career stage;  
Fewer female researchers are satisfied with their social security, pension arrangements 
and job security. 

Human resources: PhD training 

PhD training remains the main point of entry into research careers, with 92% of academic 
researchers  who  are  currently  working  in  the  EU  holding  a  PhD  or  participating  in  PhD 
training. This figure remains unchanged from MORE3. As a consequence, the quality and 
content of PhD training matters: i) in order to attract researchers into research careers; ii) 
to attract talented researchers from abroad, as there is international mobility of talented 
students looking for the best training; and iii) for the outcomes of research activity, such 
as scientific productivity in the EU, industry research performance and wider societal goals 
that are potentially affected by PhD training. 

In  spite  of  the  universal  role  played  by  the  PhD,  training  structures  and  content  differ 
considerably,  both  within  the  EU  and  between  the  EU  as  a  whole  and  non-EU  countries 
such as the US. Again, these differences are along similar lines to those seen in 2016. First, 
in terms of the structure of PhD training, PhD candidates in the EU on the whole describe 
being  predominantly  supervised  by  a  single  researcher  (60%).  Supervisory  committees 
(28%) or doctoral schools (12%) remain a minority, in contrast to the US. Joint doctorates 
are much more common among researchers currently working in the EU (31%) than in the 
non-representative  sample  of  researchers  working  outside  the  EU,  reflecting  the  rich 
diversity of the EU doctoral programmes. 

Second, in terms of the content of PhD training other than the core academic specialisation 
in a research field, we see that while 86% of EU researchers think that transferable skills 
have an important influence on career progression, only 32% of PhD candidates in the EU 
receive  training  in  transferable  skills.  Training  generally  focuses  on  skills  more  closely 
aligned to core research activities, such as research skills, communication and presentation 
skills, critical and autonomous thinking, time management, decision making and problem 
solving  (62-90%).  Skills  such  as  negotiation  and  entrepreneurship  (both  23%)  are  less 
frequently part of transferable skills training. 

20 

 
 
 
This is consistent with what PhD candidates think is important in their PhD training:  the 
foremost  aspects  mentioned  by  respondents  were  research  excellence  (90%);  and 
attractive  working  conditions  for  research  (such  as  research  independence  and  career 
development  opportunities:  88%).  Intersectoral  collaboration  and  industry  funding  are 
perceived to be least valuable, at odds with the principles for innovative doctoral training, 
of  which  only  17%  of  R1  and  13%  of  R2  researchers  are  aware.  PhD  candidates’ 
expectations  are  more  likely  to  be  focused  on  remaining  in  (academic)  research,  and 
therefore perhaps place a lower value on skills that may be more useful elsewhere. All of 
these findings remain almost unchanged since MORE3. 

Box 3: Main findings on PhD training 

PhDs are main port of entry into research careers – their quality and content matters; 
- 
-  Wide variations at EU  level in terms of the structure and content of PhD  studies; joint 

- 
- 

- 

degrees are more common inside the EU than outside it; 
Single-researcher supervision dominates over more structured forms of training; 

Although regarded as important for career progression, only one-third of PhD graduates 
received training in transferable skills; 

Intersectoral mobility or industry exposure is seen as less important for PhD training than 
core research skills. 

In terms of policy, the high share of single-researcher supervision and variations between 
countries with respect to the transparency and accountability of procedures for admission, 
supervision, evaluation and career development indicate that there is room for the further 
professionalisation  of  PhD  training  in  the  EU,  e.g.  through  the  introduction  of  more 
structured PhD training. Given the relatively low levels of structured training in many EU 
countries,  increasing  the  budget  for  MSCA  co-funding  of  doctoral  programmes  could  be 
investigated. 

While  the  Salzburg  Principles  mention  that  it  is  recognised  that  doctoral  training  must 
increasingly meet the needs of an employment market that is wider than academia, PhD 
candidates’ perceptions of what is important in PhD training, as well as the actual training 
itself, indicate that less value is given to training content that is further away from the core 
research  specialisation,  such  as  opportunities  for  intersectoral  mobility  or  exposure  to 
industry.  While  structured  training  would  make  it  easier  for  industry-science  mobility 
programmes to be drawn up, further research is needed to illuminate the tensions between 
the  demands  of  academic  excellence  in  basic  research  (requiring  specialisation  in 
research),  and  the  acquisition  of  broader  skills  or  more  applied  industry  experience,  to 
keep  researchers’  labour  market  options  open.  The  role  in  mitigating  this  tension  of 
industry-oriented  doctorates  –  as  practiced,  for  example,  by  the  European  Industrial 
Doctorates – could be further investigated. Other examples exist at national level, such as 
the  COMET  funding  programme  by  the  Austrian  research  promotion  agency  FFG.  This 
promotes  research  cooperation  between  businesses  and  research  institutions,  including 
universities, by funding research centres where both industry and academic researchers 
work  together,  and  where  pre-docs  also  work.  Pre-docs  hence  receive  early  industry 
exposure, and get to see what working in industry is like. Such schemes could be a way to 

21 

 
 
 
 
boost  both  research  funding  overall, linking  science  and  business  as  well  as  opening  up 
avenues for PhD students. 

Improving the quality of PhD training is likely to lead to inflows of early-stage researchers 
into  research  careers.  But  it  may  also  lead  to  an  increased  outflow  of  talented  young 
academics  at  a  further  stage,  when  career  prospects  and  the  general  attractiveness  of 
academic  careers  in  the  country  of  graduation  do  not  follow  match  expectations,  with 
better-trained PhD holders then being in a better position to access the global market for 
scientists. Accordingly, the next section will present findings from MORE4 on recruitment, 
career progression and career paths. 

Career paths 

After  completing  their  PhD  training,  researchers  often  face  country-specific  recruitment 
and career progression procedures which lead to country-specific career paths and, more 
generally,  to  structural  differences  between  national  higher  education  systems.  The 
structure of career paths is a main determinant of the attractiveness of a research system, 
as  it  conditions  career  perspectives  and  the  time  horizons  for  research  agendas:  short 
fixed-term  contracts  do  not  allow  the  pursuit  of  long-term  research  strategies  involving 
greater risk. Previous  research  has found that career perspectives –  or, more precisely, 
career  paths  –  that  lead  to  tenure  based  on  merit  alone,  are  the  most  important 
determinant of job choice in academia for early stage researchers. 

A  relatively  high  share  of  researchers  agree  that  their  home  institution  practices  open, 
merit-based and transparent recruitment, particularly with respect to its vacancies being 
sufficiently  publicly  advertised.  However,  as  with  PhD  training,  wide  difference  exist 
between countries. While on average, career paths are regarded as relatively transparent 
(76%), in some countries a significant share of researchers disagreed with this. Across the 
EU28, researchers’ assessments of career progression and tenure contracts as being based 
on  merit  is  not  satisfactory  on  average  (74%  and  73%,  respectively),  with  one  in  four 
researchers stating that it is not merit-based. 

Box 4: Main findings on career paths 

- 

- 

A  majority  of  researchers  in  the  EU  think  that  recruitment  and  career  progression  are 
transparent and merit-based; however, wide variations exist between countries; 

Aside from research performance, the main factors for recruitment and career progression 
are  project-related  work  experience,  knowledge  transfer,  international  mobility  and 

transferable skills; on average, intersectoral mobility is less valued in the EU, with some 
variation between countries; 

-  While a majority of researchers have open-ended contracts, different career systems give 
rise to different shapes of the ‘pyramid’  –  young researchers embarking on a research 

career in HE enjoy different opportunities according to their national research systems, 
with problems ranging from “getting in” to “getting up”. 

22 

 
 
 
Positive factors for career progression are very similar to those for recruitment. On average 
across the EU28, researchers perceive project-related work experience (91%) %) as being 
most positive for their career progression. This is followed by engagement in knowledge 
transfer, including the management of research or innovation, contribution to patents or 
the development of inventions (88%); international mobility (87%); and transferable skills 
(86%). Mobility experience to the private sector is perceived as having the weakest positive 
impact (61%) and the  greatest negative impact (6%).  In the  cases of intersectoral and 
interdisciplinary mobility, and alternative forms of research output (such as project reports 
or grant writing), wide  variations can be seen  between  countries across the  EU. Among 
those transferable skills  regarded as important for  career progression in HEIs, the most 
valued are those at the core of an academic research career, such as decision making and 
problem  solving,  critical  and  autonomous  thinking,  communication  and  presentation, 
networking  and  grant  and/or  proposal  writing  (ranging  between  96  and  98%); 
entrepreneurship (71%) and dealing with IPR (74%) are deemed to be less important on 
average for career progression in an HEI. 

Most researchers in the EU28 have a permanent or open-ended contract (80%). The share 
of researchers with permanent contracts is higher among male (81%) than among female 
(73%) researchers. Early stage researchers (career stages R1 and R2) are younger, more 
likely to be on a fixed-term contract, and less satisfied with research autonomy; R3 and 
R4  researchers  are  more  likely  to  be  on  a  permanent  contract,  male  (share  of  female 
researchers in R1: 51%; in R4: 28%), and are more satisfied with research autonomy but 
also face higher teaching loads. 

Researchers who combine a position in the HE sector with positions in other sectors (e.g. 
private  industry)  are  rare  (11%),  both  within-  and  outside  the  EU.  The  share  of  such 
researchers is slightly higher among higher career stages. MORE4 findings hence point to 
the fairly slow emergence of new types of (academic) career paths in terms of a greater 
number  of  dual  positions  with  industry,  recognition  of  alternative  research  outputs,  or 
intersectoral mobility for recruitment and career progression. 

Overall,  83%  of  EU  researchers  are  confident  about  their  future  career  prospects,  with 
more male researchers feeling confident (86%) than female (77%). Moreover, differences 
between countries are large. The share of researchers who lack confidence in their future 
career prospects is highest among early-stage researchers, while established researchers 
show higher levels of optimism about their future. 

In  the  EU28,  it  takes  an  average  of  17  years  from  the  early  career  stage  to  become  a 
leading  scientist  (R4).  The  early  career  stage  itself  (R1)  lasts  an  average  of  five  years. 
However, substantial variation can be seen between countries, particularly with respect to 
the length of time it takes to finish the first two career stages. The heterogeneity of higher 
education systems across the EU leads to wide variations in career progression, which also 
affects the distribution of researchers across the career stages R1-R4. It is natural for this 
distribution to take the shape of a ‘pyramid’ with more researchers at early career stages 
than at later career stages, as not everyone can become a full professor. In line with other 
research,  the  MORE  studies  indicate  that  the  shape  of  the  pyramid  differs  considerably 
between  countries  –  for  instance,  as  a  consequence  of  the  organisation  of  universities’ 
working units as collegiate departments or hierarchical chairs. As a result, talented young 

23 

 
 
researchers face different opportunities to embark on a successful academic career, due 
to the differing structures of HE systems in their countries. In some research systems, the 
problem relates more to “getting in”, while in others it is “getting up”. Policy options for 
career systems will differ accordingly, accentuating different parts of a tenure track system 
that many researchers view as the most attractive career model. Both the probability of 
obtaining tenure and the path to the top of the career ladder matter considerably when 
academics  make  decisions  about  employment  options.  While  the  situation  in  Europe  is 
changing,  continued  policy  efforts  are  certainly  necessary  to  improve  career  systems, 
particularly for early stage researchers. 

At EU level, such policy efforts also concern funding for mobility and career perspectives 
(ERC, MSCA, etc.) – particularly in countries in which there is a lack of funding for mobility 
stints, as international mobility is very important for career progression and recruitment. 
Support for mutual learning – such as that provided by the Policy Support Facility (PSF), 
which works specifically to address the danger of divergence in research and innovation, 
and also works on higher education and science systems – remains crucial. Mutual learning 
exercises within the PSF could look at the question of attractive career paths for early stage 
researchers. 

Working conditions 

Once researchers have  entered a  career in research, the working conditions in their job 
are crucial  to their scientific productivity and  to their subsequent decisions to remain in 
research or take another job. MORE4 conceptualises the main relevant working conditions 
as falling into one of three categories, namely: 

-  Working  conditions  not  directly  affecting  scientific  knowledge  production,  such 
as conditions relating to extrinsic pecuniary motivations to engage in a research 
career (e.g. salary and pension entitlements); and working conditions affecting 
social and content-specific motivations to engage in a research career. Individual 
satisfaction  at  work  and  with  the  social  environment  and  recognition  are  high 
(91%) in comparison with remuneration (70%). 

-  Working conditions affecting scientific knowledge production, where satisfaction 
varies  e.g.  between  research  funding  (52%);  the  balance  between  time  for 
teaching  and  research  (70%);  working  with  leading  scientists  (85%);  and 
research autonomy (91%). 

-  Working  conditions  relating  to  both  knowledge  production  and  pecuniary 
motivations, such as career and mobility perspectives, in which three out of four 
researchers in the EU28 (75%) are satisfied with their current position. 

Researchers’  satisfaction  with  working  conditions  is  lowest  in  relation  to  funding,  the 
balance between teaching and research, and career perspectives. These findings apply to 
researchers at all career stages, and remain unchanged since MORE3 (although the levels 
of  satisfaction  have  increased).  The  working  conditions  that  are  most  crucial  for 
researchers when deciding between jobs, or to sustainably attract early-stage researchers 
into research careers, are mainly those that relate to knowledge production  and the ability 
to carry out research. ’Material’ working conditions or quality of life play a less significant 
role. All other factors being equal, salaries are important, but  researchers are “willing to 

24 

 
 
pay” – in other words,  to sacrifice a level of salary – for working conditions  that enable 
them to implement their research agenda. The attractiveness of research jobs is hence a 
result of factors that influence how well researchers can do their jobs. Among others, these 
include  the  extent  of  research  autonomy;  the  quality  of  their  peers;  their  funding;  the 
balance  of  time  between  teaching  and  research;  as  well  as  long-term  career  prospects. 
Compared  with  MORE2  and  MORE3,  there  is  a  clear  upward  trend  in  satisfaction  with 
working conditions, particularly with regard to employment aspects. However, the results 
of  MORE4  reveal  the  uncomfortable  fact  that  while  research  careers  provide  very  high 
levels  of  satisfaction  with  intellectual  challenge  and  job-specific  content,  satisfaction  is 
much  lower  satisfaction  with  other  aspects  such  as  uncertain  career  perspectives,  less 
satisfactory funding of research, and the balance between time for teaching and time for 
research. The same pattern was found in the survey concentrating on researchers currently 
working outside the EU. This means that attracting more people into research careers  – 
which is an EU policy goal to tackle the challenges of more knowledge-based competition 
and the role of knowledge in supporting the twin transition, among others – is clearly linked 
to funding and career perspectives. 

In terms of policy, the MORE4 findings indicate that research jobs are attractive by their 
nature – researchers are intrinsically motivated because they like what they do. This means 
that for research careers to be attractive, it is sufficient to provide good working conditions. 
Researchers are to some extent willing to trade off  material working conditions such as 
salary  in  return  for  working  conditions  for  research,  including  research  autonomy  and 
funding, longer time horizons for their research agendas (in the form of long-term career 
perspectives), etc. Working conditions for research are hence drivers of attractiveness of 
jobs  in  research,  more  so  than  salaries,  quality  of  life  or  other  non-research-related 
working conditions. 

Moreover,  as  with  career  paths  and  recruitment,  a  picture  of  heterogeneity  in  terms  of 
satisfaction with working conditions emerges across the EU – although this time the fault 
lines  are  less  related  to  different  higher  education  systems,  but  rather  to  economic 
development  and  public  budgets  for  research  and  research  performance.  On  the 
assumption that real differences are at least partly responsible for these perceptions, this 
heterogeneity may have an impact on the completion of the single knowledge market in 
the  EU,  as  well  as  on  the  prospects  of  achieving  symmetrical  rather  than  asymmetrical 
mobility of talented researchers  within the EU (i.e. it may encourage  brain drain, rather 
than  brain  circulation).  Such  heterogeneity  can  be  addressed  through  general  economic 
policies  (e.g.  through  ESIF),  greater  research  funding  at  EU  level,  and  changing  the 
allocation modes used for funding, as well as sharing best practice and regularly monitoring 
developments in working conditions. 

25 

 
 
Box 5: Main findings on working conditions 

- 

Satisfaction with working conditions has improved overall, but major differences between 

different  aspects  of  working  conditions:  individual  satisfaction  with  work  and  with  the 
social environment and recognition are high in comparison with remuneration and certain 

working conditions affecting scientific knowledge production (research funding, balance 
between teaching and research, career perspectives); 

-  Research  jobs  are  attractive  by  nature  –  researchers  enjoy  what  they  do.  As  a  result, 
increasing the attractiveness of jobs in research mainly hinges on efforts to improve the 

working conditions for knowledge production, such as research funding. 

-  Wide variations exist at EU level in relation to satisfaction. These relate less to countries’ 
different career systems, but to economic differences that have an impact on research 
funding, remuneration and pension plans. 

International mobility and collaboration during PhD stage 

A strong ERA will be built on strong researchers. In this context, it is important to offer 
attractive career prospects to young researchers. PhD training programmes in the EU must 
be attractive enough to entice the most talented researchers in a worldwide competitive 
context7,  ensuring  brain  circulation  rather  than  brain  drain.  One  aspect  of  the  career 
prospects  for  young  researchers  is  the  internationalisation  of  PhD  training,  and  thus 
mobility. The MORE studies contribute to the development of relevant evidence in this field, 
with a series of indicators on the international mobility of early career stage researchers 
as well as those at post-PhD stage. 

International  mobility  during  PhD  stage  is  considered  an  important  asset  for 
researchers’ future careers. PhD mobility can also provide a positive choice for candidates 
in  terms  of  better-suited  training  programmes.  It  is  therefore  also  an  indicator  of 
attractiveness for PhD candidates. The MORE4 EU HE survey shows that 16% of EU PhD 
candidates obtain their PhD in a country other than that of  which they are citizens (PhD 
degree  mobility),  and  23%  experience  a  move  of  more  than  three  months  to  another 
country during their PhD (mobility during PhD). In the EU28, 64% of R1 and R2 researchers 
were not mobile for or during their PhD (70% in 2016). 

Among EU  Member States, largest shares undertaking  PhD degree mobility are found 
among  researchers  who  are  citizens  of  Greece,  Italy,  Bulgaria,  the  Netherlands  and 
Denmark (25% or more). This means, for example, that more than 40% of all researchers 
with  Greek  citizenship  undertake  mobility  to  obtain  their  PhD  in  a  country  other  than 
Greece. Conversely, Finnish, Slovenian and UK citizens are the least mobile in obtaining a 
PhD degree (less than 6%). This means that the large majority of Finnish researchers, for 
example, obtain their PhD in Finland. When looking at destination countries within the EU, 
PhD  degree  mobility  is  highest  (in  terms  of  shares)  towards  Hungary,  Luxemburg  and 
Ireland, but also towards Scandinavian countries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden. 

7  Hunter,  Rosalind  S.,  Andrew  J.  Oswald,  and  Bruce  G.  Charlton.  ‘The  Elite  Brain  Drain*’.  The 
Economic Journal 119, no. 538 (2009): F231–F251. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Comparing these figures with the results of previous MORE studies shows that while the 
EU average remains relatively stable, there is a great deal of volatility in these figures at 
country level. 

For  moves  during  the  PhD,  the  patterns  between  countries  are  somewhat  more 
consistent  over  time.  Researchers  who  will/did  obtain  their  PhD  in  Spain,  Italy  and 
Denmark are considerably more mobile to another country during their PhD than the EU 
average (between 48% and 59%, compared with 23% across the  EU). This means that 
the majority of researchers of any  citizenship who are working on a PhD in Spain, have 
mobility experience of more than three months outside Spain during their PhD. 

Both in terms of PhD degree mobility and mobility during a PhD, we find a stable pattern 
of  motives  over  time.  Young  researchers  are  driven  by  scientific  knowledge  production 
factors such as international networking, working with leading scientists, quality of training 
and education, and research autonomy. This corresponds with the general consensus that 
international PhD mobility is expected to have a positive impact on a researcher’s academic 
life and skills. 

The barriers to PhD mobility, as perceived by non-mobile researchers, are also stable over 
time, and are comparable to the mobility barriers seen post-PhD. They emphasise personal 
or family-related reasons (78%); the difficulty to obtain funding for mobility (60%) or for 
research (58%); logistics (54%); and finding a suitable position (53%). This is consistent 
with  the  existing  literature,  which  sees  motivations  relating  to  boosting  one’s  career  as 
crucial for moving somewhere else, while personal or family reasons hold researchers back 
or lead to return mobility.8 

Box 6: Main findings on international mobility at PhD stage 

- 
- 

- 

- 

Almost two thirds of EU28 R1 and R2 researchers were not mobile for or during PhD. 
Stable  pattern  in  the  relative  importance  of  motives  for  PhD  mobility:  international 

networking; working with leading scientists; quality of training and education; research 
autonomy; and for PhD degree mobility: availability of funding and positions. 

Stable pattern of barriers to PhD mobility, with an emphasis on personal reasons and on 
finding positions or funding. 

In 2016, female researchers tended to indicate a greater number of barriers as reasons 
for not having been mobile. In 2019, we observe male and female researchers tend to 

converge on this point. Personal and family reasons and logistics remain somewhat more 
important barriers to female researchers. 

-  When a researcher is part of a couple, PhD mobility is easier when the partner is also a 

researcher. 

8 Franzoni, C., Scellato, G. & Stephan, P. (2012).  Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 
countries. Nature Biotechnology, 30(12), 1250-1253. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
International mobility and collaboration in post-PhD stages 

The MORE4 study also provides some important insights into the evolution of international 
mobility and collaboration after a PhD. The share of researchers that have engaged 
in long-term international mobility (>3 months) remains stable over time: 27% 
in both 2016 and 2019. There is also remarkable stability with respect to the impact of 
family status on international mobility: As with PhD mobility, having children or being in a 
couple  is  associated  with  a  lower  likelihood  of  being  internationally  mobile:  the  rate  of 
international mobility stands at 26% for researchers with children (the same share as in 
2016), versus 37% for researchers without children (38% in 2016) 9. 

The  disparities  between  countries  revealed  in  previous  MORE  studies  are  also  visible  in 
MORE4:  international  mobility  remains  less  common  in  Southern  and  Eastern  European 
countries.  This  consistency  over  time  also  applies  to  motives  and  barriers.  The  most 
frequently cited motives for mobility are the same over time: career progression, working 
with leading scientists, research autonomy and international networking. With regard to 
the  barriers,  a  lack  of  positions  and/or  funding  for  mobility  are  even  more  important 
barriers to mobility in 2019 than they were in 2016. 

-  The EU HE survey indicates the most important barriers to mobility within the EU: 
obtaining funding for mobility (57% in 2019; 36% in 2016); obtaining funding for 
research (55% in 2019; 38% in 2016); finding a suitable position (53% in 2019; 
38% in 2016). 

-  The Global survey shows that EU researchers experience the following barriers when 
trying to return to  Europe: finding a suitable job position (84% in 2020; 75% in 
2017); obtaining funding for research (77% in 2020; 70% in 2017); and obtaining 
funding for mobility (72% in 2020; 68% in 2017). 

The MORE4 study also reveals some interesting insights with respect to forced mobility 
– that is, the extent to which researchers feel forced to move to another country. The share 
of researchers indicating that they have experienced this type of mobility was slightly lower 
in  2019  (15%)  compared  with  2016  (19%).  Out  of  mobile  researchers  as  a  whole,  9% 
indicated that they felt forced to move because there were no options for a research career 
in  their  home  country  (13%  in  2016).  A  further  6%  felt  forced  because  international 
mobility is a requirement for career progression in their home country (the same share as 
in 2016). Forced mobility has decreased across all career stages since 2016, even among 
R2  researchers,  which  were  the  group  most  affected  by  forced  mobility  in  2016.  Only 
among R3 researchers was there an increase in forced mobility as a requirement for career 
progression. Among researchers working outside Europe, the Global survey also shows a 
slight  decrease,  with  23%  of  them  reporting  this  type  of  forced  mobility  compared  with 
28% in 2016. However, it is important to note that this type of forced mobility is reported 
by 32% of EU researchers currently working outside the EU – mostly due to a lack of career 
opportunities (in 2016, the figure was 37%). 

9 There is a third category of researchers: those that prefer not to indicate their family status. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
 
Like the 2016 survey, the 2019 survey indicates that the effects of mobility are in line with 
the motives for mobility: the main effects are international networking, advanced research 
skills,  collaboration,  and  career  progression.  This  pattern  has  also  remained  stable  over 
time, and is positive overall for all types of effects. At career stage level R2, researchers 
tend to have a less positive view of the effects of mobility on their career. The difference 
between this group and R3 and R4 researchers is larger in terms of those effects relating 
to the quantity of output, collaboration with other (sub)fields of research, the number of 
co-authored publications, and national contacts. 

Box 7: Main findings on international mobility at post-PhD stages 

- 
- 
- 

- 

Levels of international mobility remain similar to 2016. 

Long-term mobility is less common in Southern and Eastern European countries. 
The  long-term  mobility  of  female  and  male  researchers  is  converging,  but  family 

composition still matters. 
15% of European researchers have felt forced to move to another EU country, a slight 

decrease on the figure in 2016 across all career stages. 

-  Career progression, working with leading scientists, research autonomy and international 

networking are the major drivers for mobility within the EU. 
34% of non-European researchers with previous work experience in the EU indicate that 

- 

obtaining a visa was a significant barrier in their move to the EU (29% in 2016). 

-  R2  researchers tend to encounter more barriers to long-term mobility than R3  and  R4 

- 

- 

researchers. 
Personal and family reasons are the most important motives for deciding not  to move, 

and their importance has increased (79% in MORE4, 77% in MORE3, 67% in MORE2). 
The  effects  of  international  mobility  are  positive,  and  are  consistent  with  the  main 
motives.  

The  above-mentioned  findings  are  consistent  with  the  literature  –  researchers  move  to 
improve their career, while their decision to remain or come back is made more for personal 
reasons, or due to a lack of funding or position. It is therefore important for policy makers 
to address both the incentives for mobility – i.e. improving the factors relevant to scientific 
knowledge  production–  as  well  as  removing  barriers  to  mobility  through  an  increase  in 
research  funding  and  available  positions.  This  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on 
fostering international collaboration and knowledge circulation across the EU. 

29 

 
 
 
Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration 

Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration, respectively understood as working in another 
discipline  and  working  with  researchers  from  other  disciplines,  have  been  said  to  foster 
certain skills that are of key importance for researchers today. Among these are a greater 
capacity to communicate effectively beyond the frontiers of one’s own field, and to adapt 
to ever-changing environments. Those in favour of promoting interdisciplinarity argue that 
interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration are well suited to addressing complex societal 
challenges,  and  that  interdisciplinarity  fosters  academic  excellence  and  innovation. 
However, a number of barriers exist in relation to realising and measuring the impact of 
interdisciplinary research (e.g. lack of a common definition, lack of common standards and 
criteria, shortage of peer reviewers with experience in evaluation interdisciplinary research, 
etc.). 

-  The MORE4 EU HE survey shows that 19% of researchers working in the EU have 

switched to another (sub)field of science during their research career10. 

-  Although  findings  and  expectations  in  existing  literature  regarding  the  impact  of 
interdisciplinary research are mixed, the MORE4 data indicate that researchers in 
the EU tend to regard this type of mobility as a positive factor for both recruitment 
and career progression (75% and 76%, respectively). 

-  With respect to interdisciplinary collaboration, almost 80% of researchers in the EU 
HE  sector  have  collaborated  with  other  fields  (up  6  percentage  points  compared 
with 2016), mainly with other researchers in academia. This is higher than the share 
of interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers working outside the EU (Global 
survey: 63%). 

-  68% of researchers in the EU collaborate with researchers in other disciplines within 
the  same  institution,  and  63%  with  researchers  at  other  universities  or  research 
institutes, versus 26% in the non-academic sector (31% in 2016). 

10 This is considerably lower than the 2016 figure of 34%: this difference may be (partly) related to 
a  small  change  in  the  questionnaire.  In  MORE3,  researchers  are  first  asked  about  their 
interdisciplinary collaboration, and are thus made aware of the reasoning in the framework of the 
FOS-classification before  they are  asked about  interdisciplinary moves. This introductory question 
was removed in the MORE4 questionnaire for reasons of simplification. It is possible that this changed 
the perspective of the researchers for this remaining question on interdisciplinary moves. 

30 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
Box 8: Main findings on interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration 

- 

- 

Almost one-fifth of all researchers have switched to another field or subfield during their 

academic career. 
This  is  considered  by  researchers  to  be  a  positive  factor  for  recruitment  and  career 

progression. 

-  Consistent patterns can be seen for interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration at EU level, 

- 

- 

yet wide variation exists between countries. 
Increase  in  interdisciplinary  collaboration,  but  a  small  decrease  in  interdisciplinary 

collaboration with non-academic partners. 
Below-average  shares  of  interdisciplinary  collaboration  are  observed  in  Social Sciences 
and Humanities (SSH). 

Intersectoral mobility and collaboration 

Closing the gap between academia and the business sector is often perceived as one of 
the ways to address societal challenges and accelerate transitions such as the green and 
digital  transformation,  while  guaranteeing  the  future  competitiveness  and  growth  of 
European  economies  and  strengthening  their  resilience.  Intersectoral  mobility  and 
exchanges  are  key  to  exchanging  ideas,  exploiting  knowledge  and  increasing  the 
innovation  capability  of  a  system,  as  well  as  enhancing  the  employability  of  individual 
researchers in multiple settings. 

Eurostat data indicate that 51% of EU researchers  were working in the private sector in 
2017 (not including not-for-profit organisations). This was a small increase compared with 
2014 (+3 percentage points). However, the EU still lags behind the US, China, Japan and 
South Korea with respect to the number of researchers employed in the private sector11. 
Within the EU, there is also considerable variation across countries. 

The MORE4 EU HE survey indicates that 24% (25% in 2016) of R2, R3 and R4 researchers 
(who currently work in a HEI) moved to another sector during their research career. 15% 
moved at least once to the private sector (6% to large firms, 3% to SMEs or start-ups, 
and 7% to not-for-profit organisations). The overall share is similar to that for researchers 
currently working outside the EU (20%). 

Networking is still the most important motive for working outside academia, regardless of 
the destination sector (over 80% of cases). Other motives depend more on the destination 
sector,  e.g.  contribution  to  society  is  more  common  as  a  motive  for  moving  to  the 
government and not-for-profit sectors, whereas gaining first-hand experience of industry, 
better remuneration and bringing research to the market are more common  motives for 

11 Cf. indicator 1.6 in the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers, based on 2017 Eurostat data: the 
share of researchers in the private sector was significantly higher in the US (71%), China (61%), 
Japan (74%) and South Korea (81%) compared with the EU28 (51%). 

31 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
moving into private industry. This indicates that any future policy instrument to encourage 
intersectoral mobility would ideally need to take into account researchers’ motivations. 

Between 65% and 67% of researchers consider that either (1) mobility towards the private 
sector, (2) mobility towards the non-profit, public or government sectors, or (3) both, are 
positive  factors  for  recruitment  and  career  progression.  This  positive  perception  is 
significantly  higher  among  those  with  experience  in  a  large  private  firm  (76-77%)  and 
lower for those with experience in an SME or startup (54-55%). Less positive results are 
found  among  researchers  working  outside  Europe:  51%  of  these  researchers  consider 
intersectoral mobility a positive factor for recruitment; 47% for career progression. 

When looking into intersectoral collaboration, the MORE4 EU HE survey indicates that 32% 
of  researchers  working  in  HEIs  (35%  in  2016)  collaborate  with  researchers  in  non-
academic  sectors.  This  is  more  common  in  later  career  stages  (40%  in  R4),  and  less 
common in SSH fields (26% in Humanities and 30% in Social Sciences). 

Box 9: Main findings on intersectoral mobility and collaboration 

- 

- 

15%  of  post-PhD  researchers  currently  working  in  European  HEIs  have  moved  to  the 
private sector at least once. 

Intersectoral  moves  are  considered  to  be  regarded  positively  in  recruitment  or  career 
progression – though less strongly than international and interdisciplinary mobility. This 

positive perception is higher among those with experience in a large private firm.  

-  Networking is the most important motive for engaging in an experience in another sector. 
32% of researchers collaborate with non-academic sectors. Of these, nearly a third (32%) 
- 
state that this collaboration is the result of a previous mobility experience. 

Attractiveness of the ERA 

When knowledge is the principal factor behind competitive advantage, leading to increasing 
competition for talented knowledge workers, the attractiveness of research areas is crucial 
for  sustainable  and  dynamic  knowledge  economies.  The  attractiveness  of  postgraduate 
research jobs is a result of the structure of recruitment, career paths and the quality of 
working  conditions.  The  attractiveness  of  research  areas  is  also  determined  by  the 
attractiveness  of  PhD  studies.  International  or  intersectoral  mobility  may  be  driven  by 
perceptions of varying attractiveness. In turn, mobility indicators such as which countries 
researchers choose for their international mobility experience, can also be interpreted as 
indicators of attractiveness. Meanwhile, mobility perspectives influence working conditions, 
as they enable international collaboration – a driver of scientific productivity. Attractiveness 
is  driven  by  the  characteristics  of  a  research  job  that  influence  a  researcher’s  scientific 
productivity,  such  as  research  autonomy,  career  perspectives  and  working  with  high-
quality  peers.  All  other  factors  being  equal,  ‘material’  working  conditions  relating  to 
remuneration, pensions and job security have an influence on job choice, along with other 
non-science  related  conditions  –  but  these  are  not  decisive  factors  in  job  or  mobility 
decisions. 

32 

 
 
 
Career perspectives are cross-cutting working conditions, as they influence both financial 
conditions and scientific knowledge production, and therefore have an impact on setting 
time  horizons  for  long-term  research  agendas.  Long-term  research  agendas  are  more 
conducive  to  fundamental  breakthroughs  than  research  agendas  limited  by  fixed-term 
contracts.  Career  perspectives  are  particularly  important  to  early  stage  researchers,  for 
whom  a  performance-based  model  (‘tenure-track’  versus  a  seniority-based  model)  can 
make  a  significant  difference  to  their  careers.  MORE4  presents  findings  on  the 
attractiveness of the EU, based on survey questions asking EU and non-EU researchers to 
directly  compare  the  EU  with  non-EU  research  systems  in  relation  to  a  number  of  such 
determinants  of  attractiveness.  These  are:  working  conditions  for  research,  material 
working conditions, and cross-cutting working conditions.  In addition, respondents were 
asked to compare attractiveness in terms of a range of additional characteristics such as 
ease of industry collaboration. 

The main insights remain practically unchanged since MORE3, in that: 

-  The more advanced the non-EU research system that researchers come from, or 
in which they have worked, the less positively the EU is regarded as a place to 
do research. 

-  The EU’s strengths are perceived as relating to material working conditions such 
as social security, job security, quality of life (vs. the US, but not overall) and 
pension plans (not for salaries), as well as education and training. Its weaknesses 
are perceived as relating in particular to attractive career paths, conditions for 
knowledge  production  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  availability  of  suitable 
positions. 

- 

-  Within the group of EU researchers who are currently abroad, researchers in the 
US perceive the US to be a much better place to do research, with the exception 
of social and job security as well as quality of life. 
 Within the EU, there is wide variation in perceptions. Researchers who have been 
mobile outside the EU and who are now working in Eastern and Southern Europe 
find it are more likely to find it more attractive to work outside the EU than within 
it,  compared  with  researchers  who  are  now  working  in  Western  and  Northern 
Europe.  This  indirectly  reflects  the  attractiveness  of  their  current  countries  of 
employment. 

In  a  nutshell,  key  career-related  job  characteristics  or  characteristics  influencing 
researchers’  productivity  are  perceived  to  be  better,  on  balance,  in  a  number  of 
economically  advanced  (OECD)  countries  with  strong  research  systems,  than  in  the  EU. 
The EU is, however, regarded as being better for quality of life and job/social security. The 
MORE surveys show that career-related aspects (e.g. independence, working with leading 
scientists and attractive career paths) are decisive factors for researchers in moving away 
from  their  home  country,  while  they  tend  to  move  back  for  personal  or  family  reasons. 
Barriers to mobility relate to  research and mobility funding, the availability of positions, 
and to issues such as the portability of pensions. 

This general finding means that the current advantages of the EU in terms of quality of life 
and job characteristics  relating to social and job security  are less effective  as drivers of 
attractiveness than characteristics that influence researchers’  scientific productivity – an 

33 

 
 
area in which the advantages of the EU are less clear cut (again, depending on the strength 
of the research system the EU is being compared with). The survey results therefore reveal 
a clear opportunity for the EU to strengthen its attractiveness as a place to do research by 
improving conditions for scientific knowledge production. As presented in the first part of 
this executive summary, many policies at EU, national and regional level address factors 
that are potentially relevant for attractiveness. In the subsequent parts of the report, we 
present the MORE4 findings, which are very similar to those of MORE3 on the role of EU 
funding, and on the availability of positions (the EURAXESS jobs portal) for attractiveness. 

The two most important barriers to mobility are the availability of a suitable position and 
the availability of research funding. As a result, EURAXESS and EU research funding can 
(alongside instruments at national level) play a potentially very important role as enablers 
of mobility or of attractiveness, as they directly address the availability of positions and 
research funding.  The  MORE4 findings indicate that EU instruments  succeed in reaching 
their  intended  target  group.  EU  funding  and  EURAXESS  can,  in  principle,  therefore 
contribute  to  attractiveness  by  enabling  mobility  to  the  EU  –  or  preventing  the  forced 
outward mobility of talents – if researchers wish to come to the EU in the first place. Both 
in  terms  of  awareness,  e.g.  among  non-EU  researchers  who  have  not  previously  been 
mobile  to  the  EU,  but  also  in  terms  of  actual  usage,  there  is  room  for  improvement  – 
although awareness of EURAXESS has increased significantly. There are, for example, high 
levels of general interest by non-EU researchers in EU research funding, but a frequently 
indicated  barrier  to  accessing  it  is  the  lack  of  knowledge  about  specific  EU  research 
programmes. 

Box 10: Main findings on attractiveness of the ERA, based on a direct 
comparison of systems 

- 

- 

- 

- 

The EU’s strengths largely relate to material working conditions such as social security, 

job  security,  quality  of  life  (vs.  the  US,  but  not  overall)  and  pension  plans  (not  for 
salaries),  as  well  as  education  and  training;  its  weaknesses  relate  to  attractive  career 

paths and the availability of suitable positions. 
Key  characteristics  influencing  researchers’  productivity  are  perceived  to  be  better,  on 

balance, in a number of countries with strong research systems, than in the EU. 
The current advantages of the EU in terms of quality of life and job characteristics relating 

to social and job security work less as drivers of attractiveness, than characteristics that 
influence the scientific productivity of researchers – an area in which the advantages of 

the EU are less clear cut. 
EURAXESS and EU research funding address the two most important barriers to mobility. 

As a result, they can play a potentially very important role as enablers of attractiveness; 
however, there remains room for their increased use. 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
Part 1. Study, policy context and 
concepts 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

1.1.  Objectives of the MORE4 study 

The MORE4 study was conducted under the framework contract “PO/2016-06/01 – Lot I – 
Impact  assessment,  evaluations,  and  other  evaluation-related  studies  in  the  field  of 
communication  activities”.  It  provides  an  update  to,  and  further  elaborates  on,  the 
set of indicators reported in the previous MORE studies, thereby addressing the need for 
indicators to assess the impact of policy measures introduced during the implementation 
of  the  European  Partnership  for  Researchers  (EPR)12.  It  also  reflects  upon  a  few  new 
indicators introduced in the MORE4 study to meet  emerging policy needs and priorities, 
such  as  the  concept  of  Open  Science  and  other  developments  identified  in  the  impact 
assessment of the forthcoming framework programme Horizon Europe. 

The main objective of the MORE4 study is defined as: 

“Carrying out two major surveys and developing indicators to help monitor progress 
towards an open labour market for researchers” 

To meet this objective, a set of four complementary and interlinked tasks were performed 
by  the  study  team.  These  have  provided  detailed  insights  into  researchers,  their  career 
paths, employment and working conditions. The tasks were as follows: 

-  Task 1: Carry out a survey of researchers currently working in the EU (and EFTA) 

in higher education institutions (HEI); 

-  Task 2: Carry out a survey of researchers currently working outside Europe; 
-  Task  3:  Review  and  update  the  set  of  indicators  developed  for  continuous 

monitoring of relevant trends and progress made in the field; and 

-  Task 4: Draft a final report providing policy-relevant comparative analysis on the 

subject matter. 

The  execution  of  these  tasks  took  into  consideration  and  purposefully  built  on  the 
methodologies  and  results  of  the  previous  MORE  studies.  In  fact,  certain  parts  of  the 
MORE3 final report13 have been reused in this report, due to the continuing relevance and 

12 Journal of the European Union (2008), Communication from the Commission to the Council and 
the European Parliament of 23 May 2008 “Better careers and more mobility: a European partnership 
for researchers”. 
13 IDEA Consult et al. (2017). MORE3 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Final Report. European Commission, DG Research 
and Innovation. 

36 

 
 
                                                 
 
consistency  of  the  findings  over  time.  The  study  has  also  been  strongly  influenced, 
informed and complemented by our analysis of the most recent EU policy developments, 
as well as a detailed review of the results and conclusions of the most recent research on 
the topic, including the ERA Progress Report 201814, the Final Report on Monitoring ERA 
Priorities  with  ERA  Roadmap  National  Actions  Plans  (NAPs)15,  the  study  “Fostering 
Industrial Talents in Research at European Level”16, and others. 

This report is the Final Report of the MORE4 study. It presents the final results of Task 4, 
the  comparative  analysis  of  all  findings  in  the  MORE4  study,  including  the  EU  Higher 
Education survey (Task 1), the Global survey (Task 2), and the indicator framework based 
on existing data (Task 3). It also provides policy-relevant insights by reflecting on lessons 
that can be drawn from the comparative analysis in MORE4 on research mobility, career 
paths, employment and working conditions in the context of both existing policy and recent 
policy developments. 

1.2.  Acknowledgements 

The present report has been prepared by: 

-  Miriam Van Hoed (IDEA Consult, Belgium) 
Lidia Núñez López (IDEA Consult, Belgium) 
- 
Jürgen Janger (WIFO, Austria) 
- 
-  Agnes Kügler (WIFO, Austria) 
-  Nicole Schmidt-Padickakudy (WIFO, Austria) 
-  Anna Strauss-Kollin (WIFO, Austria) 
Fabian Unterlass (WIFO, Austria) 
- 
-  Mantas Budraitis (PPMI, Lithuania) 
-  Dovydas Caturianas (PPMI, Lithuania) 

Comments on a draft version of this report have been received from Sybille Hinze (Berlin 
University Alliance, Germany) and Mark Whittle (CSES, UK). We thank them both for their 
valuable input and recommendations for this report. 

The  report  is  based  on  information  collected  via  two  surveys  and  desk  research.  This 
information collection has been the result of a coordinated work of: 

-  The partners within the MORE4 consortium: 

14 European Commission (2018). European Research Area. Progress Report 2018. Country Profile 
Ireland. Retrieved from:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/era-progress-report-2018_en 
15 European Research Area and Innovation Committee (2020). Final Report on Monitoring ERA 
Priorities with ERA Roadmap National Action Plans. Retrieved from 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1209-2020-INIT/en/pdf 
16 European Commission (2018). Study on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European 
Level. Final Report. Retrieved from 
https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/final_report_intersectoral_mobility.pdf 

37 

 
 
                                                 
 
IDEA Consult (Belgium) 

 
  WIFO (Austria) 
  PPMI (Lithuania) 

-  Subcontractors and experts: 

  Leopoldo Nascia (sampling strategy expert, Italy) 
 
  Loft33 (website development, Belgium) 

Interago (CATI and CAWI survey techniques, Italy) 

-  The Quality Assessment Team: 

James Nixon (proofreader, Lithuania) 

 
  Zeynep Esra Tanyildiz (Georgia State University, United States) 
  Sybille Hinze (Berlin University Alliance, Germany) 
  Mark Whittle (CSES, UK) 

The design of the study and questionnaires has been the result of coordinated work led by 
IDEA  Consult.  The  EU  Higher  Education  (HE)  survey  in  Task  1  and  the  Global  survey  in 
Task 2 were carried out by IDEA Consult and WIFO. The gathering of indicators relating to 
researchers  from  existing  sources,  and  drafting  of  policy-relevant  comparative  analysis, 
were led by PPMI. 

Comments received from Angelo Ferrazzoli (EC, DG RTD) and the steering committee with 
respect to this report, but also throughout the entire project, are gratefully acknowledged. 

1.3.  Guide to the structure of the report 

In the remainder of Part 1 of the report, we summarise the relevant policy context for the 
study  (Section  2)  and  present  the  general  conceptual  framework  of  the  MORE4  study, 
according to which the analysis is structured and the results are discussed (Section 3). 

In the Part 2 of the report, we elaborate on the results of the MORE4 study. The sections 
are structured according to the conceptual framework of the study, with the addition of a 
horizontal section on gender-related issues: 

-  Section 4 - Human resources: researchers 
-  Section 5 - Human resources: PhD training 
-  Section 6 - Recruitment, career progression and career paths 
-  Section 7 - Working conditions 
-  Section 8 - International mobility during PhD stage 
-  Section 9 - International mobility after PhD stage 
-  Section 10 - Other forms of international exchange 
-  Section 11 - Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration 
-  Section 12 - Intersectoral mobility 
-  Section 13 - Attractiveness of the European Research Area 
-  Section 14 - Gender 

In  each  case,  we  present  in  the  first  subsection  the  key  findings  and  results  of  a 
comparative analysis between the EU HE survey, the Global survey and Indicators report 

38 

 
 
on  researchers.  Then,  in  the  second  subsection,  these  findings  are  situated  within  the 
policy context and used to discuss policy-relevant questions. 

Part 3 of the report summarises the overarching policy implications of the study, including 
an  overview  of  the  policy  implications  for  the  two  main  areas  of  the  study:  the 
attractiveness  of  the  ERA  and  optimal  exchange  and  circulation,  as  well  as  for  two 
overarching  topics:  achieving  gender  equality  in  science,  and  reflections  on  the  current 
policy instruments. It concludes with a number of recommendations for further research. 

Before elaborating on the conceptual framework and  the results of the study, we briefly 
present a guide to the interpretation of the results, including a discussion of the quality of 
the various data sources and caveats with regard to the interpretation thereof. 

1.4.  Guide to the interpretation of the results 

1.4.1.  Strengths  and  weaknesses  of  using  surveys  to  analyse  researchers´  mobility 

patterns 

Several  methods  can  be  used  to  collect  information  relating  to  researchers´  mobility 
patterns.  Each  has  its  own  strengths  and  weaknesses.  The  two  most  frequently  used 
methodologies in this field are surveys17 and bibliometric analysis18;19. In a survey-based 
approach, researchers are contacted and asked to provide information about their mobility 
experiences. Using a bibliometrics-based approach, the analysis is based on publications 
databases and countries of  origin, or  on the  academic affiliation of the authors  of these 
publications. Compared with other methods – and most notably with bibliometric analysis 

17 Apart from the MORE studies, there are other important examples of surveys used in the field of 
researchers´ mobility, such as: 

- 

- 

Franzoni, Chiara, Scellato, Giuseppe, et Stephan, Paula. International mobility of research 
scientists: lessons from GlobSci. In: Global mobility of research scientists. Academic Press, 
2015. p. 35-65. 
Thorn, Kristian, and Lauritz B. Holm-Nielsen. "International mobility of researchers and 
scientists: Policy options for turning a drain into a gain." The international mobility of 
talent: types, causes, and development impact (2008): 145-167. 

18 Some examples of bibliometric analysis in the field are: 

- 

- 

Franzoni, C., Scellato, G. & Stephan, P. (2014). The mover’s advantage: The superior 
performance of migrant scientists. Economics Letters, vol. 122, no 1, p. 89-93. 
Jonkers, K. & Tijssen, R. (2008). Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of 
international mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 
77(2), 309-333. 

19 There are other methods, such as the analysis of researchers´ CVs (e.g. Cañibano, C., 
Otamendi, F.J., & Solís, F. (2011). International temporary mobility of researchers: a cross-
discipline study. Scientometrics, 89(2), 653-675.) or qualitative methods (e.g. for an example of 
use of semi-structured interviews, see Jöns, Heike. "Transnational academic mobility and gender." 
Globalisation, Societies and Education 9, no. 2 (2011): 183-209. 

39 

 
 
                                                 
 
– the main advantages of surveys (as used in MORE4 and the previous MORE studies) are 
as follows: 

-  Surveys can be designed in such way that the final sample is representative of 
the population in terms of country, field of science, gender or other important 
variables of interest. Related to this is the capacity to apply probability sampling 
and the possibility of obtaining findings that are generalisable in a stronger and 
more accurate way20. When using bibliometrics, considerations about publication 
patterns need to be accounted for in the methodological design: 

o 

Fields of science: publication and co-authoring are more frequent in some 
fields or disciplines than in others, and this has an impact on the types of 
information collected during the analysis.  

o  Career  stages:  depending  on  the  research  design  or  the  target  of  the 
research,  experienced  researchers  might  be  overrepresented,  as  this 
group tends to have published more than early career researchers.  
Incomplete data: the tools used to gather bibliometric data do not cover 
all research areas or index all publications. The results will vary depending 
on the tool that is used. 

o 

-  Surveys  can  provide  information  not  only  about  behaviours  (e.g.  mobility 
patterns)  but  also  more  detailed  sociodemographic  information  about  the 
researchers  (which  can  be  analysed  on  an  anonymised  basis  to  reflect  GDPR 
considerations  relating  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  and  privacy).  This 
additional information allows for the findings to be interpreted in greater depth, 
reducing the possibility of establishing spurious relationships. 

-  Surveys are probably the most commonly used method in studies covering large 
samples  and  with  a  wide  geographical  dispersion  (e.g.  covering  several 
countries). A standardised questionnaire can be developed that can be translated 
into  several  languages  and  applied  at  the  same  time  to  a  large  number  of 
respondents.  This  results  in  an  approach  that  is  not  only  less  labour-intensive 
compared with other methods (e.g. interviews or focus groups), but also findings 
that are comparable between countries and over time21.   
 Surveys  are  one  of  the  most  commonly  used  methodologies  to  collect 
information  about  people´s  attitudes  and  opinions.  The  MORE  studies  are 
important,  as  they  complement  the  factual  data  collected  by  Eurostat  or  the 
statistical  offices  in  Member  States  (number  of  researchers  working  in  the 
country, distribution across career stages or gender, etc). Surveys can therefore 
go  beyond  the  merely  factual  to  provide  valuable  information  helping  to 
understand  the  motivations  of  respondents.  In  this  sense,  the  MORE  studies 

- 

20  Fielding, N. G., Lee, R. M. & Blank, G. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE handbook of online research 
methods. Sage. 
Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V. & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of 
survey research. International Journal for Quality in health care, 15(3), 261-266. 
Nardi, P.M. (2018). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Routledge. 
21 Nardi, P.M. (2018). Doing survey research: A guide to quantitative methods. Routledge. 

40 

 
 
                                                 
 
provide  information  about  how  researchers  evaluate  their  own  working 
conditions,  their  own  motives  for  moving  abroad,  and  the  barriers  that  might 
hinder their mobility. More qualitative approaches (e.g. focus groups, interviews) 
are also appropriate methods for collecting this information, and often do so with 
a greater degree of detail than any survey can provide. However, the advantage 
of surveys is that the collection of the information is carried out systematically 
across a large group of individuals living in different contexts. This allows for a 
more  systematic  comparison  of  the  findings  across  contexts:  e.g.  across 
countries, fields of science, gender, career stages, etc. 
Lastly,  surveys  allow  new  developments,  concepts  and/or  policies  to  be 
investigated in a flexible way while guaranteeing the comparability of the results 
over time. This is the case, for instance,  with the introduction of new items in 
the MORE4 questionnaire that probe researchers on their attitudes towards Open 
Science  approaches.  Hence,  the  MORE4  survey  constitutes  a  unique  source  of 
information, as there are so far no other data sources that offer such a complete 
view on this topic at EU level. 

- 

1.4.2.  Characteristics and interpretation of the MORE4 data 

The MORE4 study was informed by several sources of evidence. Data from each of these 
sources has been collected using different approaches. Interpretation of the study’s results 
should, therefore, take these factors into consideration. 

It is important to note that the MORE4 EU HE survey was designed to offer maximum accuracy at 

both EU and individual country levels. The MORE4 Global survey follows a convenience sampling 
approach. As such, although this survey is not designed to offer representative data at country 

level,  it  offers  relevant  insights  on  a  number  of  policy-relevant  issues  relating  to  European 

researchers currently working outside Europe. 

The  following  paragraphs  present  in  further  detail  the  main  characteristics  of  the  data 
analysed in the MORE4 study and presented in this report, along with caveats relating to 
their interpretation. 

MORE4 EU Higher Education (HE) Survey 

The  MORE4  EU  Higher  Education  (HE)  survey22  was  the  most  important  source  of 
information used in the preparation of this report.  Most of the  findings described in this 
report refer to this survey. The survey was administered in 31 European countries (the 28 

22 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
 
Member  States23  of  the  European  Union  and  three  Associated  Countries:  Iceland, 
Switzerland  and  Norway)  using  CAWI  (Computer-assisted  web  interviewing)  and  CATI 
(Computer-assisted telephone interviewing) techniques. 

The sampling process was developed to provide estimates on researchers in the EU28+3 
HE sector with maximum accuracy at both EU and individual country level24 (5% max error 
p-value  of  0.05),  and  including  a  stratification  by  fields  of  science  (FOS).  The  survey 
reached a total of 9,321 respondents. 

-  Margin  of  error:  in  most  countries,  the  number  of  validated  questionnaires 
achieved a margin of error of 5.5%; in eight countries the margin of error was 
between  5.5%  and  6.5%  (Switzerland,  Lithuania,  Slovakia,  Finland,  Poland, 
Hungary,  Malta,  Slovenia).  In  five  further  countries  (Latvia,  Cyprus,  Estonia, 
Iceland  and  Luxembourg),  a  margin  of  error  of  between  6.5%  and  8.0%  was 
achieved.  Overall,  response  rates  are  less  equally  distributed  across  countries 
than in MORE3, but comparable to those obtained in MORE2. 

-  Comparability with MORE2 and MORE3 estimates: this was one of the main 
goals  when  designing  the  approach  and  developing  the  sample  and  the 
questionnaire  for  MORE4.  For  this  reason,  the  sampling  approach  and  data 
editing approach used is the same as in MORE2 and MORE3 (more information 
on this is presented in Annex 1 to this report and in the MORE4 EU HE report). 
Implementation  was  improved  based  on  the  lessons  learned  in  the  previous 
studies  (see  the  MORE4  EU  HE  report  for  more  details).  The  majority  of  the 
questionnaire,  including the  key questions,  were the same as those applied in 
MORE2  and  MORE3,  but  improvements  were  also  implemented  here  (see  the 
MORE4 EU HE report for more details). 

-  Cross-sectional surveys: it is important to stress the fact that the studies do 
not follow a panel design. This means that MORE2, MORE3 and MORE4  EU HE 
surveys are independent from each other in the sense that the two surveys do 
not  by  definition  follow  the  same  individuals  over  time.  Nevertheless,  the 
possibility  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  same  researcher  may  have  replied  to 
consecutive surveys. 

-  Head count (HC)-based estimates: all estimates are  expressed in terms  of 

HC only and correspond to the accuracy level mentioned above. 

-  Career  stage  estimates:  caution  is  also  needed  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
career stage estimates. The information on career stages is based on a survey 
question (self-selection by the researchers). The distribution over career stages 
can therefore not be considered without bias. However, as clarified in the annex 
to  the  MORE4  EU  HE  report,  post  stratification  weights  by  career  stage  were 
applied to test the bias relating to the fact that the data included larger shares 

23 The MORE4 EU HE survey was implemented while the United Kingdom was still considered an EU 
Member State. 
24  If the survey were to be repeated a hundred times, in 95 cases the outcomes at country level 
would deviate by no more than +/-5% from the outcomes of the MORE4 survey (5% max error -p 
value of 0.05). 

42 

 
 
                                                 
 
of R3 researchers and smaller shares of R1 researchers compared with what we 
would expect based on the information available in the literature and in Eurostat 
data on R1 researchers. In general, the results were minimally affected by this 
bias. Nevertheless, it is important to take this point into account when comparing 
MORE4  with  MORE2  or  MORE3  indicators,  as  each  of  the  surveys  features  a 
slightly different distribution across career stages. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  survey  data  include  information 
about different countries of reference, such as a researcher’s country of residence, country 
of  citizenship  or  country  of  employment.  When  results  refer  to  ‘country’  without  further 
indications, they are based on the country variable used in the sampling strategy and proxy 
to the country of current employment. In other cases, it is specifically mentioned that the 
analysis is based on another point of reference, e.g. country of PhD/graduation, country of 
citizenship, etc. 

MORE4 Global Survey 

The  sampling  approach  used  for  the  Global  survey  is  characterised  as  ‘convenience’ 
sampling (similar to the MORE2 and MORE3 Extra-EU surveys). This approach was selected 
due  to  the  absence  of  internationally  comparable  data  on  the  population  of  researchers 
worldwide.  This  means  that,  unlike  the  MORE4  EU  HE  survey,  no  information  on  the 
population of researchers was  considered in the sample design or the sample validation 
processes. Instead, a multichannel approach was applied to identify researchers working 
outside the EU: first, through a web-based contact collection approach; second, through 
the EURAXESS links (officers); and third, through an open communication strategy in which 
a non-personalised link to the online survey was distributed on the websites of the MORE4 
project, the  European Commission and the project partners, as well as via intermediary 
organisations. 

As indicated, the  Global survey does not provide  representative data  at the level of the 
countries  covered,  or  researchers’  mobility  patterns  from  and  to  specific  countries.  This 
sample does not reflect the proportion of EU researchers currently working outside the EU 
within the overall population of researchers currently working outside the EU. Therefore, 
results  need  to  be  interpreted  with  care,  and  no  generalisations/extrapolations  can  be 
made in this regard. Its value lies more in contextualising the results of the MORE4 EU HE 
survey  and  further  suggesting  trends  and  hypotheses  that  can  be  tested  with  future 
surveys. 

Indicators report on researchers 

The  third  source  of  evidence  analysed  in  this  report  comes  from  the  MORE4  Indicators 
report  on  Researchers.  This  report  gathers  data  from  different  existing  sources  and 
elaborates  indicators  at  country  level  for  the  main  dimensions  covered  in  the  MORE4 
project:  human  resources;  working  conditions;  career  paths;  international,  intersectoral 
and interdisciplinary mobility; open access; and the attractiveness of the ERA. 

The following sources are used in the elaboration of this report: 

43 

 
 
-  MORE4 surveys; 
-  Eurostat; 
-  SHE Figures; 
-  EURAXESS; 
-  SCOPUS; 
-  World Bank. 

The  comparative  analysis  presented  in  this  report  is  essentially  a  synthesis  of  findings 
drawn from the sources described above, presented and analysed in the context of relevant 
policy developments identified through desk research. Accordingly, the sections that follow 
provide a brief overview of key policy developments in the field covered by MORE4 and its 
predecessor  studies (Section 2), and how these are  reflected in the updated conceptual 
framework of the MORE4 study (Section 3). 

44 

 
 
 
 
2.  POLICY CONTEXT 

In June 2020, the Croatian presidency of the Council of the European Union announced the 
‘Zagreb Call for Action on Brain Circulation 2020’ initiative25. This Call for Action reiterates 
that  the  free  circulation  of  researchers,  scientific  knowledge  and  technology  are  the 
cornerstones for research and technological development in the European Research Area 
(ERA). At the same time, it points to a number of key challenges hindering the possibility 
of fully exploiting the potential for excellence in European research, such as: 

the heterogeneity of national research systems; 

-  an inadequate funding system; 
- 
-  a lack of incentives for knowledge, technology transfer and Open Science; 
-  differences in remuneration and research career opportunities; 
- 
-  employment that is insufficiently transparent and not based on merit; 
-  neglect of the importance of collaborative networks; 
-  a lack of facilitation for the transferability of grants.  

inadequate working conditions and a reduced number of permanent positions; 

These challenges also result in significant outward-migration and unwanted  ‘brain drain’ 
for some EU countries and regions, usually those with low R&I intensity. This Call for Action 
is therefore defined as a “reminder of the necessity to include brain circulation and equality 
in opportunities as strong pillars of the European Research Area”. 

The concept of the European Research Area was introduced in the 2000 Communication 
‘Towards a European Research Area’26 and endorsed by the Lisbon European Council. Its 
primary objective was to create a “unified research area open to the world based on the 
Internal Market, in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely 
and  through  which  the  Union  and  its  Member  States  strengthen  their  scientific  and 
technological bases, their competitiveness and their capacity to collectively address grand 
challenges”.27  The  underlying  motivation  for  this  concept  was  that  in  order  to  remain 
competitive  at  a  global  level,  Europe  needed  to  increase  its  number  of  researchers  and 
foster the quality of research outputs. 

As  indicated  above,  the  major  prerequisite  for  a  critical  mass  of  researchers  capable  of 
making  an  impact  on  Europe’s  role  in  global  competition  was  the  creation  of  a  true 

25 Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European (2020). Zagreb Call for Action on Brain 
Circulation. Retrieved from 
https://cdn4.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/news/zagreb_call_for_action_on_brain_circulation_20
20_3.pdf 
26 European Commission (2000), Communication. Towards a European Research Area (ERA).  
27 European Commission (2012), Communication. A Reinforced European Research Area 
Partnership for Excellence and Growth.  

45 

 
 
                                                 
 
‘internal  market’  for  researchers.  The  internal  market  encompasses  measures  to 
promote  transnational  mobility,  foster  interdisciplinary  collaboration,  and  encourage 
collaboration and movement between the public and private sectors. As such, it contributes 
to  the  increased  circulation  of  knowledge  and  technology  across  Europe  by  lowering 
barriers to free movement, and by promoting the coordination of programmes, research 
activities and policies at EU level. Removing barriers to free movement in such an internal 
market  means  addressing  administrative  or  financial  obstacles  that  hinder  researchers’ 
mobility,  both  within  and  between  countries,  while  at the  same  time  improving  working 
conditions for men and women. 

The  ERA  was  enshrined  in  the  Lisbon  Treaty  in  2009,  making  its  implementation  a 
‘constitutional commitment’ and the joint responsibility of the European Commission and 
the Member States. According to Article 179(1), the mission of the ERA policy is defined 
as follows: 

“The union shall have the objective of strengthening its scientific and technological 

bases by achieving a European research area in which researchers, scientific 

knowledge and technology circulate freely, and encouraging it to become more 

competitive, including in its industry, while promoting all the research activities 

deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of the Treaties.” 

In 2010, the ERA was anchored in the EU2020 strategy28, as a cornerstone of the Flagship 
Initiative  ‘Innovation  Union’.  In  the  area  of  ‘Strengthening  the  knowledge  base  and 
reducing fragmentation’, the Innovation Union committed, among other things, to actions 
(i)  promoting  excellence  in  education  and  skills  development,  and  (ii)  delivering  the 
European Research Area.29 The latter led to development of the ERA framework defined in 
the 2012 Commission communication 'A Reinforced European Research Area Partnership 
for  Excellence  and  Growth'.30  In  the  Communication,  measures  for  a  more  efficient  and 
effective public research system were defined, with a view to completing the ERA by 2014. 
The measures envisaged increased cooperation to reduce duplication of research efforts, 
and increased competition to ensure that the best researchers and teams receive funding 
and can compete in the global research landscape. The following five ERA priorities were 
put forward in the Communication: 

-  More effective national research systems; 
-  Optimal transnational cooperation and competition; 

28 European Commission (2010). Communication. Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable 
and inclusive growth.  
29 European Commission (2010). Communication. Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation 
Union.  
30 European Commission (2012). Communication. A Reinforced European Research Area 
Partnership for Excellence and Growth.  

46 

 
 
                                                 
 
-  An open labour market for researchers (facilitating mobility, supporting training 

and ensuring attractive careers); 

-  Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research; and 
-  Optimal circulation and transfer of scientific knowledge. 

The  Communication  reinforced  the  idea  of  merit-based  recruitment  to  make  research 
careers more attractive, called for brain circulation and included the ERA in the national 
reform programmes and in the European Semester. It also specified concrete commitments 
linked to maximising excellence, and maintained an emphasis on the knowledge triangle. 
Shortly afterwards, international cooperation was incorporated as a sixth ERA priority, by 
way of Council conclusions.31 

To  reinforce  the  ERA  partnership  and  achieve  its  objectives,  the  ERA  Roadmap  2015-
2020 was elaborated in 2015. The purpose of the Roadmap is to identify a limited number 
of key priorities that are likely to have the biggest impact on Europe's science, research 
and  innovation  systems  if  all  members  of  the  ERA  Partnership  get  them  right.  When  it 
comes to implementing these actions, Member States have full autonomy in identifying the 
approaches  most  suited  to  the  structures  and  dynamics  of  their  national  research  and 
innovation  systems.  Almost  all  countries  have  developed  ERA  Roadmap  National 
Strategies  and  Action  Plans  (NAPs)  comprising  a  set  of  measures,  actions  and 
initiatives.  These  include  the  top  action  priorities  of  the  ERA  Roadmap,  but  also  other 
actions  that  are  country  and  context  specific.  Progress  in  the  implementation  of  ERA 
priorities  through  the  NAPs  is  the  responsibility  of  the  European  Research  Area  and 
Innovation Committee (ERAC) and ERA-related groups32. 

The  overall  progress  made  towards  completing  the  ERA  and  its  priorities  is  monitored 
regularly  in  the  ERA  Progress  Reports.  These  reports  show  the  progress  of  ERA,  as 
measured by a specific set of 24 indicators. These include eight headline indicators defined 
by  ERAC,  which  are  known  as  the  ERA  Monitoring  Mechanism.  The  most  recent  ERA 
Progress Report dates from 2018.33 This assessment concluded that “progress towards 
the ERA priorities has continued across the majority of the headline indicators albeit 
at a slower pace. In terms of EU28 averages, most headline indicators still show progress 
over  time,  although  large  disparities  persist  between  countries  in  terms  of  both 

31 Council of the European Union (2012). Council conclusions on ‘A Reinforced European Research 
Area Partnership for Excellence and Growth’ (17649/12). 
32 High Level Group on Joint Programming-GPC, European Strategy Forum on Research 
Infrastructures-ESFRI, Standing Working Group on Human Resources and Mobility - SWG HRM, 
Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation - SWG GRI, Standing Working 
Group on Open Science and Innovation - SWG OSI, Strategic Forum for International Scientific and 
Technological Cooperation - SFIC. 
33 Directorate General for Research and Innovation (2018). European Research Area Progress 
Report 2018. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/era-progress-report-2018_en 

47 

 
 
                                                 
 
performance  levels  and  growth  rates.”34  Among  the  ERA’s  major  achievements  is  the 
progress  it  has  made  in  removing  geographical  barriers  to  researchers’  mobility,  while 
facilitating  open,  transparent  and  merit-based  recruitment  processes,  facilitated  by 
development  of  the  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  Code  of  Conduct  for  the 
Recruitment of Researchers35 (Charter and Code for Researchers) and the pan-European 
pension fund RESAVER36. 

A  new  ambition  for  the  ERA  was  defined  recently  in  the  2020  Communication  of  the 
Commission on a new ERA for Research and Innovation.37 This new approach will be 
instrumental  in  accelerating  Europe’s  green  and  digital  transformation,  strengthening 
Europe’s  resilience  and  preparedness  to  face  future  crises,  and  in  supporting  Europe’s 
competitive  edge  in  the  global  race  for  knowledge.  Four  strategic  objectives  of  the  new 
ERA are defined in the Communication: 

-  Prioritising investments and reforms in research and innovation, to support the 

- 

digital and green transition and Europe’s recovery. 
Improving access to excellent research and innovation for researchers across the 
EU. 

-  Translating R&I results into the economy to ensure market uptake of research 

output and Europe’s competitive leadership in technology. 

-  Making  progress  on  the  free  circulation  of  knowledge,  researchers  and 
technology  by  moving  from  an  approach  of  coordination  towards  deeper 
integration between national policies. 

Despite broadening the ERA (as reflected in these strategic objectives) and promoting its 
evolution  in  general,  the  new  ERA  approach  retains  a  very  strong  commitment  to 
strengthening the mobility of researchers, their expertise, and the flow of knowledge. In 
fact,  the  move  from  an  approach  of  coordination  towards  deeper  integration 
between national policies indicates a stronger than ever commitment to help develop the 
skills that researchers need for excellent science, as well as promoting adequate framework 
conditions  and  inclusiveness,  driving  the  modernisation  of  reward  systems  and  the 
attractiveness of remuneration packages, etc. A set of updated, enhanced or new EU policy 
initiatives  identified  in  the  new  ERA  Communication,  such  as  the  European  competence 
framework  for  research  careers,  ERA  Talent  Platform,  ERA4You  and  European  Open 
Science Cloud, will play a pivotal role in ensuring that further progress in these areas goes 
beyond  the  traditional  ‘single  market’  elements  of  the  ERA.  Horizon  Europe  will 
continue to provide an important impetus towards achieving this goal through its support 

34 Ibid.  
35 European Charter & Code for Researchers. Retrieved from: 
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/euraxess/charter-code-researchers  
36 https://www.resaver.eu/  
37 European Commission (2020) Communication. A New Era for Research and Innovation. 
COM(2020) 628 final. 

48 

 
 
                                                 
 
to lower-performing Member States via the Widening Participation and Strengthening the 
ERA  package,  designed  to  improve  their  access  to  excellence  and  to  address  the 
imbalanced ’brain circulation’ issues emphasised by the Croatian presidency of the Council 
of the European Union.  

As  also  highlighted  in  the  Programme  of  Germany’s  Presidency  of  the  Council  of  the 
European Union in the Fields of Education, Research and Innovation, the new role of the 
ERA needs to be embraced by all Member States and must not be perceived as an “elite 
project”.38  This  is  crucial  to  enabling  the  highest  possible  degree  of  seamlessness  and 
solidarity in the exchange of knowledge between national research and innovation systems 
and unlocking the full potential of the ERA. 

In  conclusion,  the  EU  policy  context  is  characterised  by  a  multitude  of  objectives, 
instruments, and monitoring and reporting tools to assess progress. MORE4 can provide 
first-hand  information  based  on  a  survey  among  researchers,  which  can  inform  the 
development of evidence-based policies in the academic research policy context:  

1)  The results are useful for tracking progress toward objectives,  e.g. as regards 
the adoption of open and transparent recruitment practices, innovative doctoral 
training, or more generally toward the attractiveness of the EU as a location for 
excellent academic research. The perceptions of researchers complement other 
sources of information such as surveys carried out within research institutions.  
2)  MORE4 also sheds light on the success of policies in terms of reaching their target 
audience (implementation performance), e.g. whether researchers are aware of, 
and  use  the  EURAXESS  platform.  Such  a  representative  survey  of  the  target 
population of research policies is an asset for policy design and evaluation. 

The results of MORE4 also inform policy design itself, as they pinpoint crucial issues in the 
ERA, such as heterogeneity in the structures and performances of the research systems of 
the  EU  Member  States.  The  MORE  studies  not  only  feed  into  the  development  of  policy 
reports such as the ERA progress report, but are also used analytically and for academic 
research purposes, to research the determinants and measurement of attractiveness, as 
they  contain  information  as  to  what  matters  to  researchers  from  an  attractiveness 
perspective. 

38 Germany’s Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2020). Programme of Germany’s 
Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the Fields of Education, Research and 
Innovation. Retrieved from:  
https://www.bmbf.de/upload_filestore/pub/Programme_of_Germanys_Presidency_of_the_Council_
of_the_European_Union_in_the_Fields_of_Education_Research_and_Innovation.pdf 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
3.  CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 

MORE4  is  a  detailed  and  comprehensive  study  covering  a  wide  range  of  aspects  of  the 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers (including the drivers and enablers that 
affect both). It also encompasses broader policy-relevant issues such as gender equality 
in European R&I or the overall attractiveness of the ERA. All of these aspects are observed 
not only at certain points in time, but over time. All insights from the study are drawn from 
the findings of the MORE surveys and from desk research, and are further assessed in the 
context  of  policy  developments  reviewed  in  Section  2.  To  ensure  that  such  broad  and 
detailed analysis is performed consistently across all four tasks of the study, the research 
team  was  guided  by  and  constantly  referred  to  the  same  set  of  overarching  concepts 
defined and structured in the MORE4 conceptual framework. Notably, as MORE4 is the 
fourth iteration of the MORE studies, the conceptual framework used in MORE4 was closely 
aligned with those used in the MORE2 (2012-2013) and MORE3 (2016-2017) studies39, to 
ensure consistency. 

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for the MORE4 study 

Source: MORE4, based on MORE1-MORE3 and literature review. 

39 IDEA Consult et al. (2013). MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Final report. European Commission, DG Research 
and Innovation. 
IDEA Consult et al. (2017). MORE3 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning 
mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Final Report. European Commission, DG Research 
and Innovation. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
As  shown  in  Figure  1,  human  resources  are  the  starting  point  for  this  conceptual 
framework:  the  stock  of  human  resources  is  basically  the  population  of  interest  in  the 
MORE  studies.  Researchers’  career  paths  can  be  seen  as  an  important  element  of  the 
overall working conditions of jobs in research; taken together, both are important factors 
which influence  the  various  forms  of  mobility.  For  example,  taking  the  next  career  step 
may  necessarily  involve  international  mobility  to  gain  access  to  international  networks; 
alternatively, inadequate working conditions may drive researchers away to other countries 
within  the  same  sector  or  to  other  sectors  within  the  same  country.  Perspectives  for 
international mobility may also be seen as part of the working conditions of a job, as they 
influence  potential  international  collaborations,  which  are  associated  with  scientific 
productivity, knowledge gain, accumulation of experiences, learning hew techniques, etc. 
The quality of doctoral training, working conditions and career paths determine to a large 
extent  the  attractiveness  of  the  European  Research  Area  to  both  EU  and  non-EU 
researchers,  whereas  different  forms  of  mobility  can  inter  alia  be  seen  as  indicators  for 
issues of attractiveness. 

The conceptual framework of the MORE studies was intentionally developed to inform the 
analysis  at  three  different  levels:  (i)  variables  and  indicators  concerning  human 
resources and working conditions provide evidence of progress made at both system and 
organisation  levels;  (ii)  study  findings  on  career  paths  and  mobility  patterns  provide 
information  about  changes  from  the  perspective  of  individual  researchers;  whereas  (iii) 
study  insights  on  the  overall  attractiveness  of  the  ERA  elaborate  on  trends  and 
developments at system level. 

In the following paragraphs, we briefly discuss how the concepts analysed in the MORE4 
study  and  the  MORE4  conceptual  framework  in  general  are  linked  to  the  policy 
developments  and  policy  instruments  discussed  in  Section  2.  This  overview  and 
contextualisation of the conceptual framework highlights how MORE4 provides evidence-
based input that is relevant for ongoing policy discussions. 

The MORE4 conceptual framework was originally defined in the context of six ERA priorities 
outlined in the ERA Roadmap 2015-202040 (cf. supra), in which policy lines can be divided 
analytically into two broad – and interrelated – categories: 

-  Attractiveness  of  career  paths  for  researchers,  i.e.  the  aim  to  achieve  the  full 
potential  of  the  research  base  in  Europe  in  terms  of  number  of  researchers, 
gender balance, attracting young researchers to the profession, etc. 

-  Optimal  exchange  and  circulation  of  knowledge,  i.e.  the  aim  to  valorise 
collaboration  and  mobility  and  optimise  knowledge  exchange  without  borders. 
Indicators  of  mobility,  such  as  barriers  to  or  motives  for  mobility,  provide 

40 European Research Area and Innovation Committee (2015). ERAC Opinion on the European 
Research Area Roadmap 2015-2020. Retrieved from: 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1208-2015-INIT/en/pdf 

51 

 
 
                                                 
 
important insights into what  makes  for  an  attractive  place  to  do  research  and 
can also be used to monitor progress made with regard to attractiveness. 

The  elements  of  the  MORE4  conceptual  framework  (marked  in  blue  in  Figure  2)  were 
primarily inspired by ERA Priority 3 ‘An Open Labour Market for Researchers’, but also drew 
on the concepts covered by other ERA priorities: 

-  Priority 1: More effective national research systems 
-  Priority 4: Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research (from a HEI 

sector perspective) 

-  Priority  5:  Optimal  circulation,  access  to  and  transfer  to  scientific  knowledge 

(from the perspective of intersectoral experiences in early career stages) 

-  Priority  6:  International  cooperation  (from  the  perspectives  of  non-EU 

recruitment to the EU and effects of global exchanges) 

Links  between  the  MORE4  conceptual  framework  and  ERA  priorities  defined  in  the  ERA 
Roadmap  2015-2020  are  indicated  in  grey  in  Figure  2  and  marked  as  ‘legacy  priorities’ 
(LP). 

A  few  important  additions  have  been  introduced  into  the  original  MORE4  conceptual 
framework developed at the outset of the study, with the aim of addressing the most recent 
policy developments, namely the adoption of the 2020 Communication of the Commission 
on a new ERA for Research and Innovation. It has been clarified that under this new 
approach,  policy  focus  has  shifted  from  ‘realisation  of  the  ERA’  to  ‘strengthening  of  the 
ERA’.  In  addition,  links  have  been  identified  between  the  MORE4  conceptual  framework 
and following strategic objectives of the new ERA (indicated in orange in Figure 2): 

-  Strategic objective 1: Prioritising investments and reforms 
-  Strategic objective 2: Improving access to excellence 
-  Strategic objective 3: Translating R&I results into the economy 
-  Strategic objective 4: Deepening the ERA 

It  should  be  noted  that  all  of  these  new  additions  were  incorporated  into  the  MORE4 
conceptual  framework  only  during  late  stages  of  the  study,  which  originally  began  in 
December 2018 (almost two years before the Communication was adopted in September 
2020). Accordingly, only Task 4 (reporting on the findings of policy-relevant comparative 
analysis in the final study  report) was guided  by this updated and newly contextualised 
conceptual framework.  

The  analytical  part  of  this  report  (Part  2)  is  structured  according  to  the  conceptual 
framework  of  the  MORE4  study.  More  specifically,  topics  relating  to  doctoral  training, 
attractive career paths for researchers and working conditions are covered in Sections 4 
to 7; findings on exchanges and circulation are presented in Sections 8 to 12; and study 
findings on the attractiveness of the ERA to both EU and non-EU researchers, as well as 
the  policy  instruments  supporting  progress  in  this  field,  are  summarised  in  Section  13. 
Each section begins with an introduction to the relevant concepts by presenting a summary 
of key figures and findings from the comparative analysis. These findings are then situated 
within the policy context and used to discuss policy-relevant questions.

52 

 
 
Figure 2: Conceptual framework in the policy context 

Source: MORE4. 
Note: LP – Legacy Priorities from ERA Communication 2012, P – Priorities from new ERA Communication 2020.

53 

 
 
Part 2. Comparative and  
policy-relevant analysis 

54 

 
 
 
4.  HUMAN RESOURCES: RESEARCHERS 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Section 5.1) and MORE4 Indicators report on researchers (based on 
Eurostat data). 
Note: For definitions of fields of science and research career stages see Annex 1. 

55 

 
 
4.1.  Key findings 

In  the  MORE4  Indicators  report41  on  researchers,  a  number  of  indicators  on  human 
resources  were  developed  on  the  basis  of  Eurostat  data.  Particularly  relevant  are  those 
concerning  the  total  number  of  researchers,  young  researchers  (PhD  graduates), 
researchers working in private industry, and gender differences (the last of these is also 
discussed in detail in Section 14). Moreover, the population of the EU HE survey reflects 
the  demographics  of  researchers  currently  working  in  higher  education  institutions  in 
Europe. In this section, we summarise the key findings on the quantity of human resources 
in EU HE sector. 

On the number of researchers in general: slow progress is being made towards a more 
knowledge-intensive  Europe:  the  number  of  researchers  is  increasing,  as  well  as  the 
relative number of researchers per 1,000 employees42.  

-  The number of researchers (FTE) per 1,000 employees in the EU28 increased by 

7% between 2014 and 2017, and has been increasing since 2000. 
In 2017, there were 8.9 researchers (FTE) per 1,000 employees in the EU28. 
- 
-  The  relative  number  ranges  from  2.2  in  Romania  to  16.2  in  Denmark.  Europe 
shows a fairly clear and persistent divide in this indicator: as in MORE3, we see 
that the Nordic countries Denmark, Finland and Sweden have shares  of 14-16 
researchers  per  1,000  employees.  Most  of  the  central  Western  European 
countries  have  numbers  of  9-10  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany, 
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK). Slovenia is the only 
Eastern  European  country  with  an  equally  high  number  of  9.0.  The  Southern 
countries follow, with a relative number of 6.0 researchers per 1,000 employees 
in  Italy,  7.0  in  Spain  and  8.1  in  Greece.  Among  the  remaining  new  Member 
States,  the  indicator  value  ranges  from  2.2  in  Romania  (followed  closely  by 
Cyprus with 2.5) to 7.4 in the Czech Republic.  
In  2017,  the  EU28  had  a  higher  relative  number  than  the  US  (8.4),  and  a 
significantly  higher  number  than  China  (2.2).  At  the  same  time,  the  value  for 
EU28 was lower than those of Japan (10.1) and South Korea (13.7). 

- 

On researchers by sector of R&D performance: 51% of EU researchers work in the 
private sector43, although this share varies between Member States, from 19% to 72%. 

-  The figure is relatively stable, with a 3pp increase compared with 2014, but wide 
variation is found between Member States. The countries with the highest shares 
of  researchers  in  the  private  sector,  as  a  proportion  of  the  total  number  of 
researchers, are Sweden (72%), the Netherlands (63%), and Austria, Hungary 
and Slovenia (62% each). The lowest overall numbers are found in Latvia (19%), 
Croatia  (21%),  Slovakia  (22%)  and  Romania  (25%).  These  shares  depend  on 

41 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Researcher Indicators report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
42 Based on Eurostat, Total R&D personnel (researchers) by sectors of performance, occupation and 
sex (rd_p_persocc, occupation ‘researchers’ and unit ‘FTE’) and Employment and activity by sex 
and age, total employed from 15 to 64 years in thousand persons (lfsi_emp_a). Cf. indicator 1.1 in 
the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 
43 Based on Eurostat, Total R&D personnel (researchers) by sectors of performance, occupation and 
sex (rd_p_persocc, occupation ‘researchers’, unit ‘FTE’, sector ‘business enterprise sector’). Cf. 
indicator 1.6 in the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 

56 

 
                                                 
 
industry structures (low-tech versus medium- and high-tech industries, size of 
companies, etc.) and changes, but also on established research and innovation 
infrastructures,  opportunities  and  incentives.  Industry  structures  that  are 
dominated  by  small  firms  and  established  research  systems  are  among  the 
reasons  for  the  relatively  low  shares  of  private-sector  researchers  in  many 
Eastern  Member  States  -  but  also  Portugal  and  Greece  have  experienced  low 
shares of researchers in the private sector over long periods.  

-  Over  time,  we  can  observe  large  increases  in  the  share  of  private-sector 
researchers in a number of Eastern Member States such as Bulgaria (from 14% 
in 2009 to 27% in 2014 and 43% in 2017) and Poland (from 16% in 2009 to 
32% in 2014 and 47% in 2017). Greece also achieved an increase from 17% to 
30% (+13pp) in the period 2014-2017. These countries typically start from very 
low shares of researchers in the private sector. This suggests that if the private 
sector is developing towards more research-intensive processes, it also creates 
opportunities  for  skilled  personnel.  Another  reason  for  these  shifts  could, 
however, be  fewer  opportunities in the public sector. Most countries  with high 
shares of researchers in the private sector, such as Sweden, Austria, Denmark, 
France,  Germany,  Hungary,  Malta,  the  Netherlands  and  Slovenia,  already  had 
these high shares in 2014, and several of them even in 2009. An exception is 
Ireland, where the share decreased by 11pp, from 64% to 53% between 2014 
and  2017.  This  could  in  part  be  explained  by  a  sharp  decrease  in  business 
enterprise R&D expenditure (BERD) in Ireland during this period: BERD intensity 
was stable at around 1-1.1% of GDP in the post 2008-09 crisis period up until 
2015, when a sharp decline to 0.85% of GDP occurred44. 

-  The  share  of  researchers  in  the  private  sector  is  significantly  higher  in  the  US 
(71%), China (61%), Japan (74%) and South Korea (81%) compared with the 
EU28 (51%). 

On the number of young researchers: both the number of young PhD graduates per 
1,000 population aged 25-29, and the total number of PhD graduates per 1,000 population 
increased by 6% between 2014-2017. 

- 

In 2017, the EU average was 1.35 young PhD graduates per 1,000 population 
aged 25-2945,  and 0.27 PhD graduates (ISCED 6/8) per 1,000 population overall. 
-  Even though the  EU-level indicator increased by 6% compared  with 2014, the 
relative  numbers  have  decreased  in  20  of  the  28  Member  States.  During  the 
period 2014-2017, the largest decreases were observed in Latvia (0.26 to 0.07, 
-75%),  Portugal  (1.18  to  0.53,  -55%),  Croatia  (0.28  to  0.15,  -47%)  and 
Romania  (0.60  to  0.32,  -46%).  The  largest  increases  in  the  number  of  young 
PhD graduates per 1,000 population aged 25-29 were registered in Greece (0.25 
to 0.51, +105%), Luxembourg (0.46 to 0.95, +105%) and Malta (0.19 to 0.38, 
+95%).  

44 Jordan, D. & Fákó, P., RIO Country Report 2017: Ireland, EUR 29167 EN, Publications Office of 
the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-81278-1, doi: 10.2760/646408, 
JRC111329. 
45 Based on Eurostat, Graduates (educ_uoe_grad01 from 2013, age class from 25 to 29 years, 
ISCED8; educ_grad4 until 2012, age class from 25 to 29 years, ISCED6); Population statistics 
(migr_pop1ctz, age class from 25 to 29 years). Cf. indicator 1.2 in the MORE4 Indicators report on 
researchers. 

57 

 
                                                 
 
-  Overall,  the  pattern  remains  stable  compared  with  2014:  the  highest  overall 
numbers of young PhD graduates per 1,000 population in 2017 are found in the 
UK (2.45), France (2.05) and Slovakia (2.04). More than one PhD graduate per 
1,000 young inhabitants is also  seen in Austria, Belgium, Denmark,  Germany, 
Ireland,  Italy, the Netherlands and Slovenia, while all other countries have an 
indicator value of less than 1. Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Malta, 
Poland  and  Romania  have  even  fewer  than  0.5  young  PhD  graduates  per 
thousand population in 2017.  

-  The  total  number  of  PhD  graduates46  in  Europe  follows  this  trend,  with  an 
increase of 6% between 2014 and 2017. For this indicator, however, there is an 
increase in 13 of the 28 EU Member States. The largest growth rates can typically 
be found in countries with small absolute numbers such as Cyprus (+54%), Malta 
(+127%),  or  Luxembourg  (+73%),  but  also  in  Spain  (+84%).  The  largest 
decrease is observed in Romania (-49%), Slovenia (-49%), Portugal (-46%) and 
Latvia  (-41%).  In  general,  the  increase  of  the  number  of  PhD  graduates  in 
Europe  is  partly  explained  by  the  better  employment  opportunities  that  come 
with  higher  educational  achievements.  According  to  a  2019  OECD  report, 
employment rates continue to increase with further levels of tertiary education 
attainment. On average across OECD countries, the employment rate is 82% for 
adults  with  a  short-cycle  tertiary  qualification,  rising  to  84%  for  those  with  a 
Bachelor’s or equivalent degree, 88% with a Master’s or equivalent degree, and 
92% with a doctoral or equivalent degree47. 

Romania, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, Croatia and Poland are characterised to varying extents 
by a combination of low shares of researchers, low shares of PhD graduates, and low shares 
of new PhD graduates as a proportion of the young population. These countries are among 
the lowest 10 for all three indicators. Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy and Greece have low figures 
for two out of these three indicators.  

On  gender  balance:  overall,  the  relative  number  of  female  researchers  per  thousand 
female employees is considerably lower than the total for both men and women. However, 
as  a  proportion  of  the  young  population  aged  25-29,  both  the  relative  number  and  the 
increase in female young PhD graduates are similar to the overall total. 

-  The relative number of female researchers per 1,000 female employees48 stood 
at 5.5 FTE in the EU in 2017, which is considerably lower than the overall figure 
of 8.9 (2017). The pace of increase is slow (1% between 2014 and 2017). 

-  Denmark has the highest relative number, with 12.4 female FTE researchers per 
1,000 female employees in 2017, followed by Greece and Portugal with around 
8 female FTE per 1,000 female employees. The lowest numbers are observed in 

46 Based on Eurostat, Graduates (educ_uoe_grad01 from 2013, ISCED8; educ_grad4 until 2012; 
ISCED6) and Population statistics (migr_pop1ctz). Cf. indicator 1.3 in the MORE3 Indicators report 
on researchers. 
47 OECD (2019). Indicator A3. How does educational attainment affect participation in the labour 
market? Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9572b9a6-
en.pdf?expires=1608291221&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=8A3FF13F7002C6191FC51B552D
6CDB4B 
48 Excluding Finland and the UK, as breakdowns by gender is not available for these countries. Cf. 
indicator 1.1 in the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 

58 

 
                                                 
 
Cyprus  (1.9),  Romania  (2.3)  and  Malta  (2.7).  The  indicator  increases  strongly 
between  2014  and  2017  in  Ireland  (+34%),  Denmark  (+18%)  and  Bulgaria 
(+14%). 

-  Among  the  young  population  (25-29),  the  pattern  for  the  relative  number  of 
female PhD graduates49 is similar to that for the total. The female indicator score 
stood  at  1.33  in  2017,  with  a  small  increase  of  4%  between  2014  and  2017. 
Across a number of countries, patterns for female FTE researchers are similar to 
those  for  researchers  overall:  the  highest  numbers  are  observed  in  the  UK 
(2.25),  Slovakia  (2.08)  and  Germany  (1.87),  while  the  lowest  shares  are  in 
Latvia (0.07), Cyprus (0.11) and Croatia (0.31). 

Comparing  the  share  of  young  female  PhD  graduates  to  the  total  share  of  female 
researchers  thus  indicates  that  in  the  early  career  stages  female  researchers  are  better 
represented.  

On gender equality: there is an overall improvement in the representation of women in 
grade  A  positions50  in  all  Member  States,  but  they  remain  under-represented  in  all 
countries.  26%  of  all  grade  A  positions  are  occupied  by  women,  and  the  proportion  of 
women  on  scientific  boards  is  31%  in  2017.  These  indicators  on  gender  equality  are 
discussed in detail in Section 14. 

4.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

In  previous  decades,  policy  lines  were  set  out  to  make  Europe  the  most  dynamic  and 
competitive  knowledge  economy  in  the  world.  These  include  the  development  of  the 
European Research Area and commitment to the 3% objective for R&D expenditure. The 
2000 Communication on the ERA emphasised the need for more abundant and more mobile 
human  resources51.  In  the  years  following  this  Communication,  the  European  Council 
repeatedly endorsed the ERA and emphasised the potential shortage of human resources 
in R&D. This challenge was also identified and warned against in the context  of the 3% 
objective:  the  Communication  on  ‘More  Research  for  Europe  –  towards  3%  of  GDP’52  
warned against the risk that a lack of sufficient human resources in R&D would constitute 
a bottleneck to the attainment of the 3% objective. The increased attention given to human 
resources for R&D since 2000 is also linked to parallel policy lines on the labour market 
and working conditions in general, which emphasise the development of human capital and 
lifelong learning among other aims. 

The recent 2020 Communication on the ERA53 confirms the importance of R&D investments 
and  the  need  to  attract  and  retain  talented  researchers  to  support  knowledge  diffusion 

49 Based on Eurostat, Graduates (educ_uoe_grad01 from 2013, age class from 25 to 29 years, 
ISCED8; educ_grad4 until 2012, age class from 25 to 29 years, ISCED6). Cf. indicator 1.2 in the 
MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 
50 Grade A positions - equivalent to full professors in most countries. 
51 Commission of the European Communities (2000). Communication from the Commission to the 
Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 
Regions. Towards a European Research Area. 
52 Commission of the European Communities (2002). Communication on the collection and use of 
expertise by the Commission: Principles and guidelines. “Improving the knowledge base for better 
policies”. 
53 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 

59 

 
                                                 
 
across  the  EU.  In  this, it  strongly  emphasises  the  priority  of  strengthening  national  and 
European R&I systems, as well as the interplay between them, through investments and 
reforms. In addition, it emphasises the need to improve access to excellence and broaden 
talent capacity, e.g. by supporting mobility.  

In  the  same  policy  context  of  the  full  deployment  of  research  capacity  in  Europe,  the 
inclusion  of  women  in  the  research  profession,  at  all  stages  and  in  all  sectors  and 
disciplines, is high on the agenda. It is an ERA objective to “foster scientific excellence by 
fully utilising gender diversity and equality and avoiding an indefensible waste of talent”. 
Under  the  priority  of  deepening  the  ERA,  the  new  ERA  Communication54  reaffirms  the 
importance of gender equality to the strengthening of R&I potential in Europe. 

These  goals  have  created  a  context  in  which  an  increasing  number  of  researchers  are 
needed  in  Europe,  together  with  the  full  exploitation  of  the  potential  of  human  capital, 
independent of sector, geographical location or gender. The main policy goals relating to 
the topics in this section are thus: 

-  Quantity  of  researchers:  ensure  a  sufficient  number  of  researchers  at  all 
career stages, and in all fields and sectors, so as to exploit the full potential of 
the human capital in Europe to the benefit of the European knowledge economy. 
-  Gender  equality  among  researchers:  ensure  the  balanced  representation  of 
women in research, at all career stages, and in all fields and sectors, so as to 
exploit  the  full  potential  of  the  human  capital  in  Europe  to  the  benefit  of  the 
European knowledge economy. 

However,  perceptions  of  difficult  working  conditions  or  career  paths  may  lead  people 
interested in a research career towards other fields or sectors instead. Continuous efforts 
are therefore required to improve the attractiveness of working conditions and career paths 
for  researchers  in  Europe,  in  order  to  develop  the  profession’s  full  potential.  Over  the 
following paragraphs, we discuss this from the point of view of the number of researchers. 
Topics that relate more to the effects of training, career paths and working conditions are 
discussed in detail in Sections 5, 6 and 7. Section 14 focuses specifically on topics relating 
to gender equality.  

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
the number of researchers and gender balance? 

The MORE4 analysis does  indeed show an  increase  in the number of researchers in 
the higher education sector from 1.2 to 1.4 million between 2009 and 2016 (based on the 
Eurostat total).  

It is, however, equally important that researchers find their way to career paths outside 
academia. Important indicators for this are the number of PhD graduates (overall stock of 
researchers  for  all  sectors)  and  the  number  of  researchers  already  working  in  private 
industry.  

54 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 

60 

 
                                                 
 
- 

-  Analysis of Eurostat data reveals that the total number of PhD graduates55 in 
Europe  shows  a  general  positive  trend.  This  suggests  that  the  number  of 
researchers  in  Europe  can  potentially  grow  at  a  relatively  fast  pace  compared 
with growth in overall employment, increasing the number of researchers relative 
to the total workforce. This depends, however, on attractive training and careers 
in both academic and industry research settings (see Section 4 on PhD training 
and Section 6 on research careers). 
In  terms  of  the  proportion  of  researchers  working  in  the  private  sector56 
between 2014 and 2017, Eurostat data also indicate a small increase from 48% 
to  51%.  This  is,  however,  considerable  given  the  overall  rate  of  growth  in 
researcher  stock.  This  type  of  indicator  is  not  expected  to  fluctuate  or  evolve 
significantly, and will need to be monitored in the longer run to  determine the 
effect of policy actions and external factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic. As 
in the previous MORE reports, we continue to observe large differences between 
countries  that  relate  to  the  economic  structure  and  research  intensity  in 
individual Member States. Policy initiatives to promote attractive career paths in 
industry  research  settings  will  thus  need  to  take  into  account  this  diversity  in 
national  contexts  by  allowing  sufficiently  flexible  approaches.  The  issue  of 
intersectoral mobility and exchange is discussed in further detail in Section 12. 

With regard to gender balance, the MORE4 EU HE survey data57 show a persistent pattern 
of gender imbalance, particularly in later career stages, with women making up just 28% 
of R4 researchers, corresponding  with the 26% of  Grade A positions in HEI occupied by 
women  in  2017.  A  ‘glass  ceiling’  still  impedes  women  from  reaching  higher  positions, 
although  wide  variations  can  be  seen  between  countries.  The  fact  that  a  more  equal 
balance exists among early career stages could either be an indication of improvements in 
the future, or further evidence of the glass ceiling  at which female researchers drop out 
before  they  reach  R3  or  R4  career  stages.  Progress  has,  however,  been  observed  and 
further  improvements  are  expected,  although  at  a  slow  pace,  given  the  nature  of  the 
research  systems  and  index.  This  positive  development  can  already  be  seen  from  the 
Eurostat  indicators  and  ERA  Progress  Report  201858.  According  to  the  latter  source,  the 
average EU28 score for the headline indicator ‘Share of women in Grade A positions in the 
higher  education  sector’  has  moved  up  from  23%  in  2014  to  24%  in  2016  (compound 
annual  growth  rate  =  1%).  As  mentioned  above,  gender  equality  will  be  discussed  in 
greater detail in Section 14. 

55 Based on Eurostat, Graduates (educ_uoe_grad from 2013, educ_grad until 2012) and Population 
statistics (migr_pop1ctz). Cf. indicator 1.3 in the MORE3 Indicators report on researchers. 
56 Based on Eurostat, Total R&D personnel (researchers) by sectors of performance, occupation and 
sex (rd_p_persocc, occupation ‘researchers’, unit ‘FTE’, sector ‘business enterprise sector’). Cf. 
indicator 1.6 in the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 
57 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
58 European Commission (2018). ERA Progress Report. Data gathering and information for the 2018 
ERA monitoring – Technical Report. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/research_and_innovation/era/era_progress_report_2018-
technical.pdf 

61 

 
                                                 
 
EU-level and national policy instruments 

The discussion above  confirms that socio-demographic indicators change at a slow pace 
and that, despite mainly positive trends in the number of researchers, young researchers, 
researchers  in  private  industry  and  gender  balance,  continuous  efforts  are  needed  to 
support the further realisation of structural changes and at the same time take into account 
the wide variation between national R&I systems in Europe. 

Policy  instruments  that  address  the  attractiveness  of  training,  working  conditions  and 
career paths for researchers in Europe will have an impact on the number of researchers 
choosing and remaining in a research career in Europe. These instruments are discussed 
in  Sections  5,  6  and  7,  which  cover  PhD  training,  career  paths  and  working  conditions, 
respectively.  Research  careers  in  industry  settings  and  intersectoral  collaboration  are 
discussed  in  Section  12.  Section  14  focuses  on  policies  aimed  at  improving  gender 
equality, and the needs that have been identified in this respect. 

62 

 
 
 
5.  HUMAN RESOURCES: PHD TRAINING 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Section 5.2) and MORE4 Indicators report on researchers (based on 
Eurostat data) 

This section reports MORE4’s key findings in relation to PhD training at EU and global level, 
specifically  PhD  graduation  rates,  the  organisation  and  structure  of  PhD  training,  the 
content of PhD training (mainly in terms of transferable skills), as well as PhD candidates’ 
views on innovative principles for doctoral training. 

63 

 
 
5.1.  Key findings59 

Share of researchers currently enrolled in a PhD programme or already holding 
a PhD 

EU28 total 

By career 
stage 

By FOS 

By gender 

R1: 89.7% 

MED: 87.4% 

F: 89.1% 

2012 (n=9,016) 

90.5% 

R2: 90.4% 

NAT: 91.9% 

M: 91.3% 

2016 (n=9,412) 

91.9% 

2019 (n=8,420) 

91.7% 

R3. 92.0% 

SOC: 91.0% 

R4: 91.1% 

R1: 72.5% 

MED: 92.9% 

F: 90.9% 

R2: 94.3% 

NAT: 92.6% 

M: 92.6% 

R3. 95.6% 

SOC: 90.6% 

R4: 95.2% 

R1: 80.3% 

MED: 90.0% 

F: 92.5% 

R2: 92.5% 

NAT: 93.4% 

M: 91.3% 

R3. 92.2% 

SOC: 91.1% 

R4: 94.5% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Note: 

Based on question 25: “Are you currently working on a PhD or are you enrolled in a doctoral 
programme?” and question 9: “Please indicate below all higher education (=post-secondary) 
diplomas/degrees you have obtained so far and their details.” 

In 2018, almost 772,000 (2014: 738,000) students participated in doctoral training in the 
EU2860. The number of PhD graduates per 1,000 inhabitants aged 25-3461 in the EU28 has 
risen from 1.9 in 2013 to 2.1 in 2018 (see also Section 4 for a more detailed elaboration).  

Globally, PhD training remains the main point of entry into research careers, with 92% of 
academic researchers currently working in the EU (see table above), and 88% of the Global 
survey  sample  of  researchers  currently  working  outside  the  EU,  holding  a  PhD  or 
participating in PhD training.62 As a consequence, the quality and content of PhD training 
matters (i) in order to attract researchers into research careers when they face a decision 
between  pursuing  research  or  other  labour  market  options;  (ii)  to  attract  talented 
researchers from abroad, as there is international mobility of talented students looking for 
the best training (see Section 8 on PhD mobility); and (iii) for the outcomes of research 
activity, such as scientific productivity in the EU, industry research performance and wider 

59 Due to the often unchanged nature of the results and the continuing policy relevance of the 
topics raised, also in light of the new ERA communication 2020, several parts of this text are 
unchanged with respect to the MORE3 study. 
60 Based on Eurostat, Students enrolled in tertiary education by education level, programme 
orientation, sex, type of institution and intensity of participation (EDUC_UOE_ENRT01) 
61 Based on Eurostat, Graduates (educ_uoe_grad06) and Population on 1 January by age and sex 
(demo_pjan).  
62 On this point, also see Ates, G., Brechelmacher, A., ‘Academic career paths’. In: Work Situation, 
Views and Activities of the Academic Professions: Findings of a Survey in Twelve European 
Countries, Teichler, U. & EHöhle, .A. (eds.), 13–35, 2012. In some countries, such as with 
Germany’s “Habilitation”, further qualifications after the PhD are required to successfully enter an 
academic career. 

64 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
                                                 
 
societal goals potentially affected by PhD training. Transformative R&I is at the centre of 
the  new  ERA  Communication,  and  PhD  training  can  contribute  significantly  towards 
meeting  the  objectives  set  –  for  example,  with  respect  to  tackling  the  twin  transition 
(digitalisation and greening the economy). In spite of this universal role of the PhD, training 
structures and content differ considerably within the EU, as well as between the EU as a 
whole and non-EU regions or countries such as the US, as also previously observed in the 
MORE3 study. 

First, in terms of the structure of PhD training (Figure 3), PhD candidates in the EU as 
a  whole  state  that  they  are  predominantly  supervised  by  a  single  researcher  (60%). 
Supervisory committees (28%) or doctoral schools (12%) remain a minority. Based on our 
sample  of  researchers  in  the  Global  survey63,  62%  of  PhD  graduates  in  the  US  were 
embedded in a doctoral school, with only 9% supervised by a single researcher64 . Within 
the EU, structures also vary widely, with single-researcher supervision very commonplace 
in  the  Poland  (approx.  80%  of  the  respondents  obtained  their  PhD  in  this  setting)  and 
much less so in Norway (approx. 26%). Doctoral schools are most  common in Denmark 
(40%),  Hungary  and  Norway  (38%  each),  but  non-existent  in  our  sample  in  Ireland, 
Switzerland  and  Poland.  In  comparison  to  MORE3,  there  are  only  minor  changes  at  EU-
level,  which  are  within  the  margin  of  error.  At  country  level,  there  are  larger  changes; 
however, the study did not involve a network of national country experts to explain recent 
developments  regarding  PhD-students.  The  R1  sample  population  is  also  the  population 
subject to the most change between different editions of the MORE surveys. 

In data not shown here in the final report (but contained in the EU and Global Survey), 
PhD-students  were  also  asked  about  more  detailed  characteristics  of  their  PhD-studies. 
Transparent and accountable procedures for admission, supervision, evaluation and career 
development  are,  according  to  this  additional  information,  more  common  in  the  Anglo-
Saxon  and  Nordic  system  (with  the  exception  of  Malta)  than  in  the  Southern  (except 
Greece)  and  Continental  systems.  The  countries  in  which  the  lowest  shares  of  PhD 
candidates perceived procedures as transparent and accountable were Luxembourg (9%), 
Switzerland (20%), Germany (21%), and Slovakia (21%). Joint doctorates are much more 
common  among  researchers  currently  working  in  the  EU  (31%)  than  in  the  non-
representative sample of researchers working outside the EU, reflecting the rich diversity 
of EU doctoral programmes. 

Second, in terms of the content of PhD training (Figure 4) other than the core academic 
specialisation  in  a  research  field,  we  see  that  while  86%  of  EU  researchers  think  that 
transferable  skills  have  an  important  influence  on  career  progression,  only  32%  of  PhD 
candidates in the EU receive training in transferable skills such as research  skills, people 
and  project  management.  Within  the  EU,  there  are  large  differences  between  countries 
regarding  the  share  of  young  researchers  receiving  training  in  such  transferable  skills. 
Countries  such  as  Lithuania,  Bulgaria,  Germany  and  Poland  show  low  levels  of  PhD 
candidates stating that they have received training in transferable skills during their PhD. 
On the other hand, in Romania, Hungary, Denmark and Italy, the share of PhD candidates 

63 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
64 Details on PhD supervision structures for researchers currently working outside the EU are 
reported in the MORE4 Global Survey. 

65 

 
                                                 
 
who state that training in transferable skills forms a part of their PhD training is relatively 
high. 

Training  in  transferable  skills  focuses  on  skills  more  closely  related  to  core  research 
activities, such as research skills, communication and presentation skills, decision making 
and  problem  solving,  and  critical  and  autonomous  thinking  (>80%).  Skills  such  as 
engagement with society, IPR, negotiation and entrepreneurship are less frequently part 
of  transferable  skills  training  (<40%).  Among  the  Global  survey  sample  of  researchers, 
while  researchers  who  graduated  in  a  non-EU  country  have  on  average  received  more 
training in transferable skills, the same pattern of skills taught prevails. Researchers who 
graduated from a US institution are more likely to have received training in transferable 
skills; however, training in entrepreneurship and IPR is even slightly lower in the US than 
in the EU. This may be explained by US PhD programmes focusing on excellence in basic 
research65. 

A more detailed analysis of how PhD training looks in individual EU countries is provided in 
the MORE4 EU HE survey66. For example, there is wide variation between countries with 
respect to international networking as a part of PhD training, with 77% of PhD candidates 
in Romania declaring that they have developed international networks, compared with only 
17% of PhD candidates in the UK. 

65 The US-American higher education system is overall very heterogeneous, with low-quality 
institutions operating alongside top institutions. Our results seem to reflect respondents working at 
high-quality institutions, as international mobility to low-quality institutions is probably low. 
However, in terms of attractiveness and of asymmetric mobility of EU researchers towards US 
research universities, it is precisely these high-quality US institutions which are interesting as a 
benchmark for the EU’s ambitions. 
66 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

66 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 3: PhD supervision structures by country, researchers working inside the 
EU 

Source:  MORE4 EU HE Survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) – Figure 13 in MORE4 EU HE report 
Notes: 

Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders. 
Possible answers were that PhD supervision was undertaken by just one senior researcher, by a 
supervisory committee, embedded in a doctoral school, or took another form. 

Based on question 48: “How would you describe your PhD in terms of supervision structure?” 
(2019: n=1,843; 2016: n=2,786) 

Third, the results with regard to the composition of training in transferable skills are in line 
with  what  PhD  candidates  think  is  important  in  their  PhD  training:  research 
excellence is foremost (90%), and attractive working conditions for research (88%; e.g. 
research  independence,  career  perspectives).  Intersectoral  collaboration  and  industry 
funding  are  least  valued  –  at  odds  not  only  with  the  principles  for  innovative  doctoral 
training,  but  also  with  the  goals  stated  in  the  new  ERA  Communication  for  greater 
intersectoral  mobility  to  provide  outside  career  options  and  boost  the  valorisation  of 
research  results.  PhD  candidates’  expectations  are  more  likely  to  focus  on  remaining  in 
(academic) research; thus, they perhaps place less value on skills more necessary outside 
the academic sector. Among different fields of science, the highest share of PhD candidates 
co-funded by industry is unsurprisingly found in Engineering (12%), where there is strong 
industry interest. This is followed by Agriculture (7%), while it is lowest in Social Sciences 
(3%). On average, heterogeneity across the EU is less pronounced in terms of co-funding 
than  it  is  in  relation  to  the  structure  and  content  of  PhD  studies.  This  points  towards  a 
more unified perception of early-stage researchers and what matters with respect to PhD 
training, contrasting with real and significant heterogeneity in terms of actual PhD training. 
17% of R1 and 11% of R2 researchers are aware of the principles for innovative doctoral 
training  –still  very  low,  but  an  increase  of  8  percentage  points  among  R1  researchers 
compared with MORE3. 

67 

 
 
Figure 4: Share of researchers receiving training in transferable skills during their 
PhD, by country of graduation 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016) – Figure 16 in MORE3 EU HE report 
Notes:  

Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders. 
Fewer than 30 observations were made in Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, Malta. These countries are, therefore 
not displayed in the graph. 
Share of researchers receiving training in transferable skills by country of PhD (i.e. the country in which 
the researcher obtained a PhD, or is currently enrolled in a PhD programme). 
Based on question 50: “Which of the following statements are applicable to your PhD training?” 
(2019: n=1,936; 2016: n=2,810)  

68 

 
 
 
 
5.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

The policy context for PhD training in the EU is characterised by a variety of policy aims 
emanating,  for  example,  from  the  Council  Conclusions  on  young  researchers,  the  EU 
innovative  doctoral  training  principles,  and  the  four  ERA  priorities  from  the  recent 
Communication on the new ERA: 

-  Quantity  of  researchers  trained  at  PhD  level:  industry  requires  more 
researchers, not only because international competition is increasingly based on 
R&D  and  innovation,  but  also  because  it  is  becoming  harder  to  originate  new 
ideas,  leading  to  declining  R&D  productivity67.  The  twin  green  and  digital 
transition will require substantial research efforts. PhD studies hence need to be 
attractive in order to draw in growing numbers of talented students against the 
backdrop of an overall decline in the number of students in several countries of 
the EU.  

-  Quality  of  PhD  studies:  worldwide  competition  for  the  most  talented 
researchers68  requires  that  PhD  training  programmes  in  the  EU  must  be 
attractive  enough  to  entice  the  best  talents,  ensuring  brain  circulation  rather 
than brain drain. High-quality PhD training is a pillar for later research excellence, 
which  is  linked  to  both  economic  competitiveness  and  meeting  societal 
challenges. 

-  Content  of  PhD  training:  higher  demand  for  PhDs  by  industry,  and  the 
pyramidal  nature  of  career  options  in  academia,  require  that  options  for  PhD 
candidates should be kept broad. PhD studies need to ensure that general and 
transferable  skills  are  part  of  the  curriculum,  to  equip  students  for  changing 
expectations in terms of career paths outside academia. 

-  Composition of the student body: without gender equality in PhD training, it 
is unlikely that gender equality among researchers will ever be achieved. This is 
equally  true  for  the  representation  of  students  from  disadvantaged  social 
backgrounds. Both gender equality and greater inclusiveness feed back into the 
goal of quantity of researchers. These issues will be further addressed in section 
14. 

In terms of policies to achieve these aims, there are EU-level funding instruments such as 
the  MSCA  co-funding  of  structured  PhD  training,  but  also  a  variety  of  guidelines  and 
principles  for  doctoral  training  (the  Salzburg  Principles  and  Innovative  Doctoral  Training 
Principles,  see  Box  10)  which  universities  or  Member  States  can  draw  upon  to  improve 
doctoral training. 

67 R&D productivity appears to be falling in several industries, as it is “getting harder to find ideas”. 
For example, it now takes 18 times as many researchers to double the computing power of 
microtransistors every two years as it did in 1970 (Moore’s Law). See Bloom, N., Jones, C.I., Van 
Reenen, J. & Webb, M. ‘Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?’ Working Paper N. 23782. National 
Bureau of Economic Research, September 2017. 
68 Hunter, R.S., Oswald, A.J. & Charlton, B.G. (2009). ‘The Elite Brain Drain*’. The Economic 
Journal 119, no. 538: F231–F251. 

69 

 
                                                 
 
Box 11: Seven principles for innovative doctoral training 

In 2005, the European University Association (EUA) conducted the Doctoral Programme project69, 
which led to the Salzburg conference and the 10 Salzburg Principles70 (reproduced in the Bergen 
declaration),  which  provide  the  basis  for  the  reforms  of  doctoral  education  in  Europe.  These 
principles  reflected  the  key  role  of  doctoral  programmes  and  research  training  in  the  Bologna 
process.  They  were  further  developed  into  the  Salzburg  Recommendations  II  (2010)71.  The 
European Commission consequently used this basis, together with good practices in the Member 

States  and  Marie  Curie  experiences,  to  develop  its  seven  ‘Innovative  Doctoral  Training 
Principles’72 in the framework of the ERA: 

1. Research excellence 

Striving  for  excellent  research  is  fundamental  to  all  doctoral  education,  and  from  this  all  other 

elements  flow.  Academic  standards  set  via  peer  review  procedures  and  research  environments 
representing  a  critical  mass  are  required.  The  new  academic  generation  should  be  trained  to 

become  creative,  critical  and  autonomous  intellectual  risk  takers,  pushing  the  boundaries  of 
frontier research. 

2. Attractive institutional environment 

Doctoral candidates should find good working conditions to empower them to become independent 

researchers taking responsibility at an early stage for the scope, direction and progress of their 
project. These should include career development opportunities, in line with the European Charter 
for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers. 

3. Interdisciplinary research options 

Doctoral training must be embedded in an open research environment and culture to ensure that 
any appropriate opportunities for cross-fertilisation between disciplines can foster the necessary 
breadth and interdisciplinary approach.  

4. Exposure to industry and other relevant employment sectors 

The term 'industry' is used in the widest sense, including all fields of future workplaces and public 
engagement,  from  industry  to  business,  government,  NGO’s,  charities  and  cultural  institutions 

(e.g.  museums).  This  can  include  placements  during  research  training;  shared  funding; 
involvement  of  non-academics  from  relevant  industries  in  informing/delivering  teaching  and 

supervision; promoting financial contributions from relevant industries into doctoral programmes; 

69 European University Association (2007). Doctoral Programmes in Europe’s Universities: 
Achievements and Challenges. Retrieved from 
http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-area/research-and-innovation/doctoral-
education/doctoral-programmes-project/  
70  European University Association (2005). Salzburg 2005 – Conclusions and Recommendations. 
Retrieved from  
http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salzburg_Conclusions.1108990538850.pdf  
71 European University Association (2010). Salzburg II – Recommendations. Retrieved from 
http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/Salzburg_II_Recommendations. sflb.ashx 
72 Based on the "Report of Mapping Exercise on Doctoral Training in Europe: Towards a common 
approach" of 27 June 2011(final), adopted by the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and 
Mobility. The seven principles were defined with the help of experts from university associations; 
industry and funding organisations.  

70 

 
                                                 
 
fostering alumni networks that can support the candidate (for example mentoring schemes) and 
the programme; and a wide array of people/technology/knowledge transfer activities. 

5. International networking 

Doctoral  training  should  provide  opportunities  for  international  networking,  e.g.  through 
collaborative  research,  co-tutelle,  dual  and  joint  degrees.  Mobility  should  be  encouraged,  be  it 
through conferences, short research visits and secondments, or longer stays abroad. 

6. Transferable skills training 

“Transferable  skills  are  skills  learned  in  one  context  (for  example  research)  that  are  useful  in 
another (for example future employment whether that is in research, business etc.). They enable 

subject-  and  research-related  skills  to  be  applied  and  developed  effectively.  Transferable  skills 
may  be  acquired  through  training  or  through  work  experience”.  It  is  essential  to  ensure  that 

enough researchers have the skills demanded by the knowledge-based economy. Examples include 
communication, teamwork, entrepreneurship, project management, IPR, ethics, standardisation, 
etc. 

Business should also be more involved in curriculum development and doctoral training so that 
researchers’ skills better match industry needs, building on the work of the University Business 

Forum  and  the  outcomes  of  the  EUA  DOC-CAREERS  project.  Good  examples  exist  of 
interdisciplinary  approaches  in  universities  that  bring  together  skills,  ranging  from  research  to 
financial and business skills, creativity and design to intercultural skills. 

7. Quality assurance 

Accountability  procedures  must  be  established  with  regard  to  the  research  base  of  doctoral 
education. For this reason, they should be developed separately from quality assurance in the first 

and second cycle. The goal of quality assurance in doctoral education should be to enhance the 
quality of the research environment as well as promoting transparent and accountable procedures 

for topics such as admission, supervision, awarding the doctorate degree and career development. 
It is important to stress that this is not about the quality assurance of the PhD itself, but rather 

the process or life cycle, from recruitment to graduation. 

The ‘Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training’ were endorsed by the EU Council of Ministers in 

their conclusions on the modernisation of higher education on 28/29 November 2011, and by the 
ERA Standing Group on Human Resources and Mobility73. 

73 Report of the ERA Steering Group Human Resources and Mobility (ERA SGHRM): Using the 
Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training as a Tool for Guiding Reforms of Doctoral Education in 
Europe. 

71 

 
                                                 
 
Source: Report of Mapping Exercise on Doctoral Training in Europe: Towards a common approach (2011) and 
IDEA Consult and Cheps (2011) Exploration of the implementation of the Principles for Innovative Doctoral 
Training in Europe, Final report. 

The 2011 study to explore the acceptance and implementation of the Innovative Doctoral 
Training Principles (IDTP) in European institutions74 concluded that there is an important 
interplay between these seven principles. This was recognised in the adoption paper of the 
SGHRM75.  European  stakeholders  of  doctoral  education,  which  considers  “research 
excellence”  based  on  internal  “quality  assurance”  and  the  “attractiveness  of  the 
institutional environment” as core elements that should form the basis for every doctoral 
training  offered.  Exposure  to  industry  and  other  relevant  employment  sectors, 
interdisciplinary research options, international networking and transferable skills are seen 
as complementary but nonetheless important principles influencing the success of doctoral 
training and the future careers of doctoral candidates. These principles are linked, among 
other  things,  to  disciplinary  demands,  considerations  relating  to  the  candidate’s  specific 
research topic, or special features of the doctoral programme. The interplay between these 
principles  is  further  influenced  by  the  economic  conditions  and  structure  of  the  Member 
States, the regulatory stability and legal framework of doctoral education, the academic 
culture (national traditions, disciplinary cultures etc.), and by the sustainability of funding 
provided to universities. 

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
PhD mobility? 

On a positive note, the known strength of the diversity of EU doctoral programmes is also 
reflected in our survey data on joint degrees and PhD studies, which are seen as focusing 
on the advancement of knowledge through original research, in line with the core mission 
of  PhD  studies76.  However,  comparison  with  the  Innovative  Doctoral  Training  Principles 
(IDTP)  indicates  several  areas  of  potential  improvement.77  The  high  level  of  single-
researcher  supervision  and  country  heterogeneity  with  respect  to  the  transparency  and 
accountability  of  procedures 
for  admission,  supervision,  evaluation  and  career 
development, indicate that there is room for the further professionalisation of PhD training 
in the EU. This could occur, for example, through the introduction of more structured PhD 
training. While other sources document significant progress in reforming doctoral education 
in Europe, MORE4 survey data point to the ongoing need for reform.78 

As  such,  doctoral  schools  or  programmes  require  a  critical  mass  in  terms  of  research 
activity; the introduction of more structured training could also lead to wider reforms within 
universities,  e.g.  in  terms  of  profile  building  or  the  allocation  of  funding.  Institutional 
transformation  is  also  an  objective  of  the  new  ERA  Communication.  A  more  structured 
programme  that  brings  together  a  larger  number  of  PhD  candidates  would  also  provide 

74 IDEA Consult and Cheps (2011) Exploration of the implementation of the Principles for 
Innovative Doctoral Training in Europe, Final report. 
75 Report of the ERA Standing Group on Human Resources and Mobility (ERA SGHRM), Retrieved 
from 
 https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/principles_for_innovative_doctoral_training.pdf 
76 Training in creative, critical and autonomous thinking seems to be relatively high, as called for 
by the Council Conclusions on measures to support early stage researchers.  
77 Only approximately 10% of PhD candidates are aware of the Innovative Doctoral Training 
Principles. 
78 Report of the ERA Standing Group on Human Resources and Mobility (ERA SGHRM), Retrieved 
from 
 https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/principles_for_innovative_doctoral_training.pdf 

72 

 
                                                 
 
more competition between students, allowing for earlier selection – so that students can 
see early on whether a career in research is likely, or whether alternative career paths are 
more appropriate.  

Furthermore,  more  structured  training  would  also  facilitate  the  introduction  of  more 
interdisciplinary training and the development of transferable skills through taught courses, 
as well as allowing more international collaboration. The increase in administrative capacity 
that  should  accompany  more  structured  training  would  also  make  it  easier  to  conclude 
international exchange programmes, such as short-term PhD mobility. Structured training 
programmes or doctoral schools would also enable transparent recruitment policies, which 
could  take  into  account  criteria  such  as  international  recruitment,  gender  equality  and 
social  background,  as  indicated  in  the  follow-up  to  the  Salzburg  Recommendations 
(Salzburg II Recommendations). 

Intersectoral  mobility  also  has  an  important  role  to  play  with  respect  to  early-career 
researchers. The notion that doctoral programmes need to be adapted to the needs of an 
employment market that extends beyond academia is a view increasingly shared among 
stakeholders and policy makers. In this sense, the Salzburg II Recommendations and the 
Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training are paradigmatic. According to these, “Doctoral 
programmes should seek to offer geographical as well as interdisciplinary and intersectoral 
mobility  and  international  collaboration  within  an  integrated  framework  of  cooperation 
between  universities  and  other  partners.”  In  a  similar  vein,  the  Council  conclusions  on 
'Measures to support early stage researchers, raise the attractiveness of scientific careers 
and  foster  investment  in  human  potential  in  research  and  development’  also  explicitly 
stress  the  need  to  support  early-stage  researchers  in  their  careers  by  promoting 
intersectoral  mobility,  dual-career  opportunities  and  PhD  training  in  collaboration  with 
industry, among others79. These aims were reiterated by the ERA Communication 2020. 

While the Salzburg Principles recognise that doctoral training must increasingly meet the 
needs  of  an  employment  market  that  is  wider  than  academia,  and  the  IDTP  call  for 
exposure  to  industry  in  various  ways,  both  PhD  candidates’  perceptions  of  what  is 
important in PhD training, and their actual training, indicate that training content which is 
further away from the core research specialisation, such as opportunities for intersectoral 
mobility or exposure to industry, is less valued80. While structured training would also make 
it easier to draw up programmes for industry-science mobility, more research is needed to 
illuminate  the  tension  between  the  demands  of  academic  excellence  in  basic  research 
(requiring specialisation in research), and the acquisition of broader skills or more applied 
industry experience to keep labour market options open. Studies point to disincentives to 
engaging in applied research prior to tenure, due to the fact that early-stage researchers 
are  assessed  on  the  excellence  of  their  publication  output,  which  is  usually  harder  to 
achieve  by  engaging  in  applied  problem-solving.  Such  problems  are  less  general,  and 

79 Council of the European Union (2016). Draft Council conclusions on ‘Measures to support early 
stage researchers, raise the attractiveness of scientific careers and foster investment in human 
potential in research and development’ Retrieved from 
http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14301-2016-INIT/en/pdf. 
80 It is also interesting to note that researchers working in the EU with a US PhD value above all 
research excellence and working conditions for research as guiding principles of doctoral training, 
while entrepreneurship and IPR issues are valued even less on average than in the EU.   

73 

 
                                                 
 
hence less publishable in the top basic research journals81. Of course, there are exceptions 
to this, when industry is very close to basic research, e.g. in pharmaceuticals.  

Potential  ways  to  ease  this  tension  could  consist  of  increasing  the  provision  of  different 
types of PhD programmes: those preparing candidates for academic basic research, and 
others oriented towards working in industry, as practiced in Denmark82, for instance, or by 
the European Industrial Doctorates (EID) in the framework of the MSCA Innovative Training 
Networks (ITN). 

This  does  not  mean  that  basic  research-oriented  PhD  programmes  will  no  longer  offer 
taught  courses  to  prepare  PhD  candidates  for  engagement  with  society,  or  for 
entrepreneurship: there are instances in which basic research leads to discoveries that can 
(only) be commercialised by the researchers behind the discovery.83 Career development 
opportunities  can  also  be  part  of  basic  research-oriented  PhD  programmes.  However, 
intersectoral  mobility  during  PhD  training  and  work  on  applied  problems  is  easier  in 
industry PhD programmes, followed by quick labour market transitions from PhD training 
to  industry  research.  Industry-oriented  PhD  programmes  could  also  involve  business  in 
curriculum development, as suggested by the IDTP to reduce skill mismatch. Furthermore, 
the  design  and  execution  of  industry-oriented  PhDs  could  benefit  from  the  key 
characteristics of MBA  programmes, including exposure to specific industries or  regions, 
interaction with business leaders or use of the case method or hands-on training. 

However, offering different types of PhDs clearly requires further research and evaluation 
of existing programmes such as those in Denmark. Evaluation of EIDs has shown that they 
are almost exclusively set up in engineering and information sciences, which are closer to 
industry  than  certain  basic  natural  sciences,  for  example.84  Moreover,  EID  fellows  were 
usually already interested in industry before they began a PhD. While their career prospects 
have usually improved due to the high quality of the EID and their networks, the overall 
effect of such schemes in terms of their aim of increasing exposure to industry or interest 
in careers in industrial research remains unclear. Other examples exist at national level, 
such as the COMET funding programme by the Austrian research promotion agency FFG. 
This  funds  research  cooperation  between  firms  and  research  institutions,  including 
universities, by funding research centres at which both industry and academic researchers 
work together, and where pre-docs work. Thus, pre-docs obtain early industry exposure 
and get to see what working in industry is like. This could also be a way to boost overall 
research funding, link science and business, and open up avenues for PhD students. This 
could  be  particularly  interesting  for  countries  with  low  levels  of  business-science 
cooperation, or with very low interest by academics in industry exposure, as well as low 
research funding (e.g. Spain, Italy). 

81 Thursby, M., Thursby, J. & Gupta-Mukherjee, S. ‘Are There Real Effects of Licensing on Academic 
Research? A Life Cycle View’. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Academic Science and 
Entrepreneurship: Dual engines of growth, 63, no. 4 (August 2007): 577–98.  
82 See, for example, the Danish programme on industrial PhDs, 
https://innovationsfonden.dk/en/application/erhvervsphd. 
83 Zucker star scientists in commercialisation of academic research. 
84 There is an example in Germany for the funding of stronger practical orientation in doctoral 
education at German universities in the Humanities, Cultural Studies and Social Sciences 
https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/humanities-cultural-studies-social-sciences-and-
professional-practice-in-graduate-education  

74 

 
                                                 
 
EU-level and national policy instruments 

Given  the  findings  of  MORE4  on  the  relatively  low  prominence  of  structured  training 
programmes, EU co-funding of graduate schools or doctoral programmes (as carried out, 
for instance, through the MSCA co-funding initiative or via the ESIF) certainly addresses 
important  issues  in  the  ERA.  Co-funding  helps  to  cover  the  fixed  cost  of  establishing 
structured  PhD  training  and  the  necessary  conditions,  such  as  transparent  recruitment 
policies in line with EU policy objectives, research excellence and gender equality, among 
others.  Given  the  relatively  low  levels  of  structured  training  in  many  EU  countries, 
increasing the budget for MSCA co-funding of doctoral programmes could be investigated.  

With  regard  to  industry  doctorates  or  initiatives  to  broaden  the  skills  acquired  through 
doctoral training, the low success rates among applications to EIDs would speak in favour 
of increasing the budget of this action85. An increase in the number of industry-oriented 
PhD programmes  could also  make it easier for applications  to  succeed from universities 
that are not at the forefront of basic research, and are more likely to be in economically 
poorer  EU  countries.  This  could  boost  equity  within  the  ERA  and  contribute  to  a 
convergence,  rather  than  divergence  in  research  excellence  among  EU  countries,  as 
opening up labour markets for researchers always runs the risk of triggering processes of 
concentration of the most talented researchers to the most attractive places to carry out 
research. Widening is also a clear objective of the new priorities in the ERA Communication. 
Partnering with companies to set up industry PhD programmes in ‘catching-up’ countries 
could also help these firms to assess the potential added value of qualified workers with 
advanced research skills, potentially increasing innovation activities.86 However, industry 
doctorates may not help to boost excellence in basic research. 

Returning  to  reforming  PhD  training  more  generally,  not  just  with  respect  to  industry 
doctorates, further reforms at national level are a necessary complement to efforts at EU 
level. Improved doctoral training can be regarded as a key feature of countries’ efforts to 
improve  the  effectiveness  of  their  national  research  systems,  to  deepen  the  ERA  (e.g. 
through open labour markets and industry-science knowledge exchange). Improving the 
quality of PhD training is likely to lead to inflows of early-stage researchers into research 
careers  in  the  given  country.  But  in  a  further  stage,  it  may  also  lead  to  an  increased 
international  outflow  of  talented  young  academics  when  career  prospects  and,  more 
generally, the attractiveness  of academic careers do not  match  expectations within that 
country, as better-trained PhD holders are then in a more advantageous position to access 
the global market for scientists. Accordingly, the next section will present MORE4’s findings 
on  recruitment,  career  progression  and  career  paths,  after  presenting  a  number  of 
measures at national level. 

According to the ERA Progress Report 2018, different types of measures were launched or 
continuously  implemented  at  national  level  to  improve  both  doctoral  training  and  its 

85 European Commission, DG Education, Youth and Culture, European Industrial Doctorates – 
towards increased employability and innovation. Final report, Prepared by ICF and Technopolis. 
86 In countries far from the forefront of technology, firms are much less likely to adopt innovation 
strategies as elements of their competitive strategy, due to a number of barriers to innovation, 
such as lack of qualified workers, but also failure to perceive the benefits of innovation (see Hölzl, 
W. & Janger, J. ‘Distance to the Frontier and the Perception of Innovation Barriers across European 
Countries’. Research Policy 43, no. 4 (May 2014): 707–25. 

75 

 
                                                 
 
quality assurance. Without aiming to be exhaustive, and without any further information 
on the effectiveness of the measures, we hereby list some of these initiatives: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In some cases, innovative doctoral training is being implemented by streamlining 
the research and education funding system. In Italy, each PhD course specifies 
the  ways  in  which  its  programme  is  innovative,  with  regard  to  international 
cooperation,  or  intersectoral  or  multidisciplinary  collaboration.  Each  course  is 
evaluated by ANVUR (the National Agency for  the  Evaluation of the University 
and Research Systems) on the basis of these criteria. A small portion of general 
government funding is also distributed on the basis of the innovative principles 
of doctoral training. In addition, the funding mechanisms applied in Italy for ESIF 
support  measures  for  R&I  were  streamlined  in  2017:  generic,  repeated  calls 
(rather  than  multiple  small  and  focused  calls)  supporting  innovative  research 
programmes,  internships  and  doctoral  studies  were  introduced  for  National 
Centre  for  Research  and  Development  (NCBR)-managed  ESIF-funded  calls, 
based on relatively simple, standardised rules. 

In France, the professionalisation of French doctoral schools  has recently been 
observed,  with  a  more  careful  and  professional  monitoring  of  PhD  candidates. 
The  2016  reform  of  the  PhD  track  complemented  this  evolution,  in  which  the 
main change was the introduction of a PhD committee for each PhD candidate. 

In Greece, international reviewers are used in the evaluation and prioritisation 
of  proposals.  These  even  include  specialists  in  Smart  Specialisation  Strategy, 
which is the basic strategy for the programming period 2014-2020 and funding 
from  Structural  Funds  (ESIF).  The  ELIDEK  or  HFRI  (Hellenic  Foundation  for 
Research & Innovation), which finances doctoral and postdoctoral research, also 
uses  international  evaluators,  since  proposals  are  submitted  in  English. 

In Hungary, over recent years there has been an extension of PhD programmes 
by  one  year,  and  an  increase  in  grants  for  PhDs.  In  addition,  a  new  tutoring 
system for PhD students has been introduced. 

-  The  major  development  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  Dutch  NAP 
under Priority 3 is an extension in the awarding PhDs, under which a wider range 
of  researchers,  specifically  associate  professors,  are  now  allowed  to  supervise 
PhD  candidates  and  award  PhDs.  This  increase  in  supervisors  is  expected  to 
ensure closer and more intensive supervision, contributing to improved quality 
in doctoral training. Despite concerns that it could create ‘second-class’ PhDs and 
lead to an over-saturation of PhDs in the job market, the law was approved in 
2017. 

-  Over recent years, higher education institutions in the Flemish region of Belgium 
have established an increasing number of doctoral schools for PhD training, with 
a specific focus on the training of horizontal skills among early-stage researchers. 

- 

In  Estonia, the scholarships offered to PhD  students were  increased slightly in 
2016.  In  2015,  some  other  support  measures  were  introduced  such  as  the 
covering  of  social  and  health  tax  contributions  for  PhD  students.  Tallinn 
University of Technology decided to pay all new PhD student the  equivalent of 
the average salary in Estonia. In addition, the Estonian government set a goal to 
reach 300 PhDs a year by 2020. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

- 

In Ireland, the National Skills Strategy 2025 was launched in 2016:  this notes 
the need for a solid pipeline of research skills development that supports early-
stage researchers, researcher mobility into industry and internationally, as well 
as  the  development,  retention  and  attraction  of  advanced  researchers  from 
abroad. In addition, the planned National Framework for Doctoral Education was 
published in 2015. 

In Norway, in order to strengthen initiatives on the professional development of 
researchers,  a  scheme  was  started  in  2016  to  provide  PhD  scholarships  to 
research institutes (STIPINST). 

77 

 
 
6.  RECRUITMENT, CAREER PROGRESSION AND CAREER PATHS 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Section 5.3) and MORE4 Indicators report on researchers (based on 
Eurostat data) 

78 

 
 
6.1.  Key findings87 

Perception of recruitment and career progression 

The  design  of  recruitment  and  career  progression  are  crucial  to  the  attractiveness  of 
research  systems,  as  they  determine  whether  those  with  better  training  and  future 
potential  get  jobs,  choose  to  stay  and/or  are  promoted.  Over  time,  since  2012  (from 
MORE2 to MORE4) there has been a steady improvement in the share of researchers who 
agree that their home institution practises open, merit-based and transparent recruitment 
(Figure 5), particularly with respect to its vacancies being sufficiently publicly advertised88. 
However, differences exist between countries with regard to recruitment procedures. For 
instance,  within  the  EU,  fewer  Southern  European  researchers  (74%)  think  that  merit-
based recruitment is less standard, compared with the average across the EU28 (82%). 
Moreover,  external  advertising  of  positions  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  a  position  is 
opened  up  to  more  intense  competition,  as  additional  criteria  may  make  it  difficult  for 
researchers to successfully apply for the position. For example, if applicants are required 
to teach in the language of the country where the position is offered, this may substantially 
reduce the number of foreign candidates for a position. 

Career  paths  show  a  similar  pattern  of  responses  to  recruitment.  They  are  seen  as 
relatively  transparent  on  average  (76%),  while  in  some  countries  a  significant  share  of 
researchers disagrees on this (e.g. in Portugal, the figure is just 40%). Similar shares of 
researchers regard career progression as merit-based and tenured positions being common 
practice  –  roughly  three  quarters  of  researchers  in  2019  (Table  1).  In  general,  the 
perceived  lack  of  merit-based  career  progression  was  considerable  in  some  Southern 
European countries, e.g. Portugal and Italy, as well as in France, while the highest shares 
of researchers agreeing that career progression is merit-based can be seen in Anglo-Saxon 
and Nordic countries, i.e. the Netherlands, Denmark, the UK and Sweden. 

Perceptions  regarding  recruitment  transparency  and  merit-based  career  progress  differ 
among researchers currently working inside the EU compared with those currently working 
outside  the  EU.  Researchers  working  inside  the  EU  tend  to  perceive  higher  levels  of 
transparency  and  merit.  The  group  of  Anglo-Saxon  countries,  especially  the  US,  is  an 
exception  here,  with  similar  shares  of  researchers  in  agreement  to  those  in  the  EU28 
averages (cf. MORE4 Global survey report89). 

87 Due to the often unchanged nature of the results and the continuing policy relevance of the 
topics raised, also in light of the new ERA communication 2020, several parts of this text are 
unchanged with respect to the MORE3 study. 
88 Comparison with 2012 needs to be made with caution, as the wording of the questionnaire 
changed slightly. 
89 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

79 

 
                                                 
 
Figure  5:  Researchers’  perceptions  of  recruitment  in  their  home  institutions 
(EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) – Figure 
20 in MORE4 EU HE report 
Notes: 

Shares of researchers agreeing with the statement in the question. 
Based on question 37: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to recruitment in your 
home institution: 1) Research job vacancies are sufficiently externally and publicly advertised and made 
known by the institution. 2) The recruitment process is sufficiently transparent. 3) Recruitment is 
sufficiently merit-based.”, with answer categories “I agree”, “I don’t agree” and “N/A”. 
The difference with 2012 data needs to be interpreted with caution since the respective question in 
MORE2 was stated slightly differently, in particular the item on external advertising, and the question 
had a different position in the questionnaire. In MORE2: “What is your opinion on the following issues: 1) 
Are you satisfied with the extent to which job vacancies are publicly advertised and made known by your 
institution? 2) Do you think that the recruitment process at your home institution is sufficiently 
transparent? 3) Do you think that recruitment at your home institution is sufficiently merit-based?”, with 
answer categories “yes”, “no” and “N/A / no opinion”. 
(2019: n=7,705-7,940; 2016: n=8,317-8,632; 2012: n=7,210-7,710) 

Table 1: Perception of career progression by country, 2019 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Merit-based 

Transparent 

Tenure is 
common practice 

69,9% 

77,2% 

76,0% 

78,8% 

70,8% 

86,3% 

80,7% 

71,5% 

78,0% 

70,3% 

76,3% 

66,9% 

63,5% 

73,0% 

72,4% 

76,2% 

71,7% 

86,0% 

77,5% 

82,0% 

66,6% 

70,6% 

73,9% 

75,1% 

53,6% 

73,6% 

74,3% 

78,1% 

74,0% 

86,4% 

71,8% 

73,3% 

67,2% 

69,3% 

73,3% 

74,3% 

80 

 
 
 
Merit-based 

Transparent 

Tenure is 
common practice 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

United Kingdom 

EU 
Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019)  
Notes: 

74,0% 

70,2% 

70,8% 

68,5% 

83,0% 

65,9% 

68,7% 

62,0% 

84,0% 

82,1% 

80,3% 

79,6% 

77,9% 

60,3% 

90,1% 

68,7% 

87,1% 

86,0% 

81,2% 

62,0% 

63,3% 

69,0% 

63,0% 

84,9% 

60,9% 

76,3% 

58,4% 

83,7% 

78,6% 

83,7% 

83,7% 

80,2% 

45,3% 

86,7% 

79,3% 

80,5% 

76,9% 

80,4% 

64,3% 

70,7% 

64,5% 

69,7% 

83,6% 

58,8% 

78,4% 

57,9% 

81,4% 

80,8% 

83,5% 

73,6% 

81,5% 

45,2% 

88,0% 

77,8% 

81,2% 

77,4% 

82,9% 

77,1% 

73,6% 

72,0% 

Shares of researchers agreeing with the statement in the question. 
Based on question 38: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to career progression in 
your home institution: 1) The different types of career paths are clear and transparent at your home 
institution (I agree/I don’t agree); 2) Career progression is sufficiently merit-based (I agree/I don’t 
agree); 3) Obtaining a tenured contract based on merit only is common practice at your home institution 
(I agree/I don’t agree). 
The size of the sample for each of the items is: for the question on transparency, n=7,999; for the 
question on merit, n=7,797; for the question on tenure, n=7,333. 

Factors influencing recruitment and career progression 

MORE4  asked  researchers  how  a  range  of  different  factors  (various  forms  of  mobility, 
alternative  forms  of  research  output  and  transferable  skills)  impacted  recruitment  and 
career progression. Standard research output or publication performance was not part of 
these factors, as it was assumed to be central for any researcher.  

Positive factors for career progression (lower panel in Figure 6) are very similar to those 
for recruitment (upper panel of Figure 6). On average in the EU28, researchers perceive 
project-related work experience (91%), knowledge transfer (88%), international mobility 
(86%) and transferable skills (86%) as being most positive for their career progression, 
while a mobility experience to the private sector is perceived as having the weakest positive 
impact  (61%)  and  the  highest  negative  impact  (6%).  In  the  cases  of  intersectoral  and 
interdisciplinary mobility and alternative forms of research output (such as project reports 
or grant writing), wide variations between EU countries are observed.  

Intersectoral  mobility  experiences,  publishing  in  open  access  journals,  and  public 
awareness activities are, on average, perceived as less valuable by researchers in Southern 
Europe (e.g. in Italy or Portugal), and more valuable in Continental European countries, 
such as the Netherlands. Regarding intersectoral mobility to the private sector or to the 
government sector, the share of researchers perceiving it as positive for career progression 

81 

 
 
ranges from 28% (private sector) and 36% (government sector) for researchers in Italy, 
to  and  78%  (private  sector)  of  researchers  in  Latvia  77%  and  (government  sector)  of 
researchers in the Netherlands. 

The relatively low importance of international mobility as a factor for recruitment or career 
progression in Anglo-Saxon countries (62%, incl. the US with 64%) compared with other 
non-EU  country  groups  (non-EU  OECD:  68%;  others:  >80%)  or  the  EU28  (86%)  is 
presumably  a  consequence  of  the  high  quality  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  research  systems  in 
comparison to other national research systems, so that international mobility may be less 
beneficial for researchers based in Anglo-Saxon countries. Intersectoral mobility in the US 
is valued even less than in the EU, at just 43%. As outlined in Section 5, this may reflect 
pressure  to  excel  academically  by  publishing  in  top  journals.  Otherwise,  the  results  are 
similar  to  those  found  in  the  MORE4  Global  survey  –  a  universally  positive  role  for 
international  mobility  in  recruitment  and  career  progression,  and  a less  positive  role  for 
intersectoral mobility. 

Among those  transferable skills seen as important for  career progression in HEIs, those 
skills that are most closely related to academic research are perceived as most valuable. 
These  include  decision-making  and  problem  solving,  critical  and  autonomous  thinking, 
communication and presentation, networking and grant and/or proposal writing, teamwork 
and time management (>95%). Entrepreneurship (71%) and dealing with IPR (74%) are 
deemed  less  important  on  average  for  career  progression  within  an  HEI,  although 
differences  are  apparent  between  disciplines,  with  researchers  in  Medical  Sciences  and 
Agricultural Sciences stating that IPR skills are important (80% and 83%, respectively).  

Figure 6: Positive factors for recruitment (upper panel) and career progression 
(lower panel) in the EU28 

82 

 
 
Source: MORE4 EU HE Survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) – Figure 24 and Figure 36 in MORE3 EU HE 
report 
Note:  

Share of researchers agreeing that these factors are positive for recruitment or career progression (EU28 
average). 
Based on question 39: “In your experience, would you say the following factors are regarded as positive 
or negative factors for recruitment in your home institution?”, and question 40: “In your experience, 
would you say the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for career progression in 
your home institution?” Note that 2016 a smaller range of options were given. 
(2019:7,570-8,540; 2016: n=8,483-9,421) 

Characteristics of career paths 

Different  recruitment  and  career  progression  procedures  give  rise  to  country-specific 
career  paths  and  systems.  The  structure  of  career  paths  is  a  major  determinant  of  the 
attractiveness of a research system, as it conditions career perspectives and time horizons 
for research agendas: short, fixed-term contracts do not allow the pursuit of long-term, 
risky research strategies.90 Moreover, in quasi-experimental analysis using MORE2 data, it 
was found that career perspectives – or, more precisely, career paths that lead to tenure 
based on merit alone – are the most important determinants of job choice in academia.91 
This  section  outlines  how  long  it  takes  to  reach  later  career  stages  in  the  EU,  the 
distribution  of  researchers  across  the  various  career  stages  (i.e.  the  shape  of  the 
‘pyramid’), as well as the contractual situation of researchers and the prevalence of dual 
positions.  

In the EU28 it takes 18 years, on average, from early career stage to become a leading 
scientist (R4). However, there is substantial variation between countries, particularly with 

90 Short-term contracts may also reduce the incentives for a young scientist to invest in the 
accumulation of human and social capital; it leads them to favour quantity over quality, and may 
even be detrimental to Open Science, an EU policy priority  (for a thorough discussion of this, see 
Petersen et al., 2012). 
91 Janger, J. & Nowotny, K. (2016). Job choice in academia. Research Policy, 45(8), 1672-1683. 

83 

 
 
                                                 
 
respect to the length of time it takes to finish the first two career stages.92 Average time 
in the EU28 to reach R3 is 10 years, ranging from six years (Romania) to 14 years (Austria). 
The  heterogeneity  of  higher  education  systems  across  the  EU  leads  to  heterogeneous 
careers, and also affects the distribution of researchers over career stages R1-R4 (Figure 
7).  While  it  is  natural  for  this  distribution  to  take  the  form  of  a  ‘pyramid’  with  more 
researchers at early career stages than at later career stages – not everyone can become 
a  full  professor –  MORE4  indicates,  in  line  with  other  research93,  that  the  shape  of  the 
pyramid  differs  considerably  between  countries.  Countries  with  hierarchical  chair-based 
systems and few tenured positions, such as in Germany, tend to have a smaller share of 
R4 and R3 researchers (60%), while Southern European systems such as in Spain, Greece 
and Italy, tend to feature higher shares of tenured R3 and R4 researchers (85-93%). Such 
structural differences have remained persistent since 2012. 

Most of the researchers in the EU28 have a permanent or open-ended contract. Compared 
with 2016 (and also 2012), especially in Continental European countries but also in Anglo-
Saxon countries, the average share of permanent contracts has increased while the share 
of  fixed-term  contracts  has  decreased.  In  2019,  87%  of  researchers  sampled  in  Anglo-
Saxon countries have permanent contracts, along with 69% of researchers in Continental 
European countries, and 78% of researchers in Southern European countries. This implies 
that fewer  researchers  are now  on fixed-term  contracts (EU28 2012:  34%, 2016: 26%, 
2019: 20%). 

Established patterns in researcher characteristics across career stages remains unchanged 
from previous analyses (MORE2 and MORE3). Early-stage researchers (career stages R1 
and R2) are younger (below 44 - R1: 87%, R2: 68%); more likely to be on a fixed-term 
contract  (share  of  permanent  contract:  R1:  17%,  R2:  52%);  and  have  less  research 
autonomy;  R3  and  R4  are  more  likely  to  be  on  a  permanent  contract  (R3:  86%,  in  R4 
95%);  male  (share  of  female  researchers  in  R1:  51%,  in  R4:  28%);  and  have  more 
research autonomy but also higher teaching workloads. 

92 Ates, G., Brechelmacher, A. (2012) ”Academic career paths“. In: Work Situation, Views and 
Activities of the Academic Professions: Findings of a Survey in Twelve European Countries, 
Teichler, U. & Höhle, E.A. (eds.), 13–35, find for selected EU countries an average time span of 7-8 
years from PhD graduation to first full-time employment, also with wide variation between 
countries. 
93 See, for example, Kreckel, R. “University Career Models and International Staff Mobility. 
Germany, France, Great Britain, USA and Russia Compared.” (2017). 

84 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 7: Distribution of researchers across career stages R1 to R4, by country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Based on question 13: “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” 
(2019: n=9,321 2016: n= 10,394;) 

Variation between countries in terms of permanent contracts is substantial. This is in line 
with  the  literature,  since  the  Anglo-Saxon/Nordic  systems  are  characterised  by  an 
intermediate  share  and  the  Southern  European  systems  by  high  shares  of  tenured 
researchers94, while the Continental higher education system usually shows higher shares 
of  fixed-term  researchers.  Looking  outside  Europe  shows  that  the  EU  average  for 
permanent contracts is higher than the non-EU average. 65% of researchers employed in 
the US have permanent contracts, while all other non-EU country groups report shares of 
between 53% (‘other’ countries) and 74% (Anglo-Saxon countries). 

Having  a  dual  position  is  a  marginal  situation  on  average  in  Europe;  in  total  only  11% 
(2016: 10%) of researchers in R2-R4 are employed by several institutions, either inside or 
outside the higher education sector, while 20% of all the respondents to the Global survey 
report having a dual position, with higher shares in BRICS95 (19%) and `other’ countries 
(33%) than in the US (11%). The shares of researchers with a dual position vary only a 
little  across  career  stages,  with  the  lowest  shares  among  R3  researchers  (9%)  and  the 
highest  shares  among  leading  R4  researchers  (14%).  Within  Europe,  dual  positions  are 
generally much more common in Eastern and South-Eastern Europe than in other European 

94 The Southern European system refers to systems also called a “protective pyramid”, with early 
access to a permanent position following strict competition and promotions depending on job 
availability. See Janger, J., Strauss, A. & Campbell, D. (2019). ”Attractiveness of jobs in academia: 
a cross-country perspective“. Higher Education 78(6), p. 991-1010, 2019. 
95 BRICS is a grouping acronym referring to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. 

85 

 
 
                                                 
 
countries.  The  combination  of  positions  in  the  HE  sector  with  positions  in  other  sectors 
(e.g. private industry) is rare (5%) within the EU.  

Confidence in future career 

Overall,  83%  of  EU  researchers  are  confident  about  their  future  career  prospects,  with 
more male (86%) than female (77%) researchers expressing confidence. Large difference 
can be seen between countries. Overall, career confidence tends to dominate in Northern 
Europe, while the countries with the highest share of researchers who feel ‘somewhat’ or 
‘very’ confident about their future careers are Iceland (96%), Austria (93%), Malta (93%), 
Slovenia  (93%)  and  Norway  (92%).  By  contrast,  in  Southern  European  countries, 
particularly Italy (63%) and Portugal (68%), the shares of researchers who feel confident 
about  their  professional  future  are  comparatively  low.  Overall,  the  share  of  confident 
researchers outside Europe is similar (80%). In line with the findings of the EU survey, the 
share  of  non-EU  researchers  who  lack  confidence  is  the  highest  among  early-stage 
researchers,  while  leading  or  established  researchers  show  higher  levels  of  confidence 
about their future (see MORE4 Global survey). 

6.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

The policy context for researcher careers in the EU is characterised by a variety of policy 
aims  emanating,  for  example,  from  the  Council  Conclusions  on  young  researchers,  the 
Communications on creating and strengthening ERA, and the agenda for higher education 
in  the  EU.  Similar  to  findings  regarding  PhD  training,  a  number  of  general  performance 
goals follow on from these polices: 

-  Quantity of researchers: as with PhD training, research careers –with respect 
to both recruitment and career progression procedures – need to be attractive 
(i.e. open, transparent and merit-based), to ensure that a sufficient number of 
PhD graduates embark upon a career in research. Diversity of career path options 
is also important with regard to the quantity of researchers. 
International  competitiveness  of  research  careers  offered:  worldwide 
competition for the most talented researchers means that career paths in the EU 
must be attractive enough to entice the best, ensuring brain circulation rather 
than brain drain.  

- 

-  Reducing  intra-EU  variation  in  research  performance:  it  is  a  key  aim  of 
ERA to reduce both brain drain, notably from weaker regions, as well as helping 
weaker  regions  to  catch  up,  in  order  to  reduce  wide  regional  variations  in 
research and innovation performance. 

-  Diversity of career paths: higher demand by industry for researchers, as well 
as  the  pyramidal  nature  of  career  options  in  academia,  call  for  keeping 
researchers’  options  broad.  Career  paths  should  include  all  forms  of  mobility, 
including intersectoral mobility to the private sector, or dual positions. 

-  Gender  equality  among  researchers:  lower  shares  of  female  researchers 
compared  with  male  counterparts,  particularly  at  later  career  stages  and  in 
natural sciences, point to the need to tackle the under-representation of women 
in  general,  but  especially  in  leading  research  positions,  and  in  scientific  and 
technical  professions,  as  well  as  in  fields  where  skills  shortages  exist.  These 
issues are addressed in Section 14. 

Making progress towards all of these aims would be beneficial both in terms of the quantity 
of researchers and the quality of research (as measured, for example, through bibliometric 
indicators), as it would become easier to recruit the most talented for a career in research. 
In addition to many initiatives at national level, these goals  are addressed  from  various 
angles at EU level: 

86 

 
-  Recommendations and guidelines for Member States, as in the European Charter 
for  Researchers  and  the  Code  of  Conduct  for  the  Recruitment  of  Researchers, 
stressing the need for career development opportunities, mobility perspectives, 
or transparent and merit-based recruitment; 

-  Deepening  the  ERA:  in  relation  to  a  new  skills  agenda  for  researchers96,  the 
European  Commission  intends  to  develop  a  European  Competence  Framework 
for  researchers  and  support  the  development  of  a  set  of  core  skills  for 
researchers, as well as defining a taxonomy of skills for researchers that aims to 
allow the statistical monitoring of brain circulation; 

-  Along with the new proposals from 2020, a variety of instruments will continue: 

o  EU-wide (and even global) advertisement of job openings on EURAXESS 

(ERA4you) and the provision of information on careers in Europe 

o  EU  vehicle  for  portable  pensions  (Retirement  Savings  Vehicle  for 

European Research Institutions or RESAVER) 

o  Providing funding for individual researchers, e.g. through ERC and MSCA 
schemes,  which  provide  career  development  opportunities  and  mobility 
perspectives; 

-  Encouraging young people to embark on scientific careers and promoting science 

education. 

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
research careers? 

Overall, several positive developments have occurred with respect to recruitment97, career 
progression  and  other  features  of  academic  careers  in  the  EU.  Compared  with  MORE3, 
more positions are externally advertised, and more researchers agree that their institution 
recruits  researchers  in  a  transparent  and  merit-based  way.  Several  countries  have 
addressed recruitment and external advertising through reforms. Although MORE4 cannot 
establish causal links between these reforms and the MORE4 survey results, the MORE4 
findings are encouraging in this regard. Moreover, trends are positive compared with both 
MORE2 and MORE3 (i.e. since 2012), with fewer researchers experiencing insecure working 
conditions in terms of fixed-term contracts, particularly in later career stages. However, 
fixed-term  contracts  often  come  with  grant-based  research  funding,  so  that  a  lower 
number of fixed-term contracts may also be a result of less research funding, rather than 
any  deliberate  reforms  of  career  structures.  In  terms  of  policy,  this  result  needs  to  be 
further investigated, as the MORE4 findings generally show that structural heterogeneity 
between EU Member States persists in terms of their national career and higher education 
systems, given that these structural features are naturally slow to evolve. 

Recruitment, career progression and career paths are characterised by many national and 
institutional-level specificities. Researchers are sometimes employed as civil servants 

96 European Commission (2020). Communication. European Skills Agenda for sustainable 
competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2020/EN/COM-2020-274-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-
1.PDF  
97 However, there is no information on how HEIs have changed their recruitment policies as a 
result of the awareness-building measures promoted by the EU. While there are encouraging signs, 
there needs to be further evidence to conclude whether or not the openness of the EU labour 
market for researchers has improved. 

87 

 
                                                 
 
(particularly in France and Greece, but also in Germany at the level of professors), or may 
have standard contracts that are also used in the private sector; PhDs and post-docs may 
depend on third-party funding rather than university funds; the organisation of universities’ 
working units as collegiate departments or hierarchical chairs may affects the shape of the 
‘pyramid’ (i.e. the potential for early-stage researchers to make it to later career stages). 
Practices of recruitment are sometimes centralised, as in Italy, or decentralised, as in many 
other countries98. This wide  variety  of structural differences between  EU countries gives 
rise to different policy priorities. This diversity need not always be negative: heterogeneity 
may also be a rich and positive source of learning and experimentation. However, just like 
MORE3, the MORE4 findings point to persistent features that impact the attractiveness of 
careers in research, not just within the EU, but also by comparison with leading non-EU 
countries  such  as  the  US.  Talented  young  researchers  face  different  opportunities  to 
embark on a successful academic career, due to the different structures of HE systems. 

As an example, in certain Southern European systems, the problem faced by early-stage 
researchers  relates  to  “getting  into  a  protective  pyramid”.  There  is  a  low  availability  of 
positions,  and  while  entry  positions  are  frequently  tenured,  the  journey  further  up  the 
career  ladder  is  not  always  merit-based99.  Some  Continental  European  systems  follow 
hierarchical, chair-based organisation models of universities, making it difficult for young 
researchers to move up to permanent positions. While there are many fixed-term positions 
and  getting  in  is  easy,  a  comparatively  long  entry  phase  due  to  the  “habilitation”  that 
comes with reduced research autonomy and unclear long-term career perspectives, makes 
it  difficult  to  “get  up”.  This  system  is  clearly  unattractive  in  comparison  to  the  “tenure 
track”-model in US research universities, which are organised according to the collegiate 
department model100; however, the tenure track model is also under stress in the US, with 
the share of tenured positions decreasing. 

Policy  options  for  both  career  systems  –  Southern  European  and  Continental  –  will 
accordingly differ. The former is in need of a higher number of entry positions, linked to 
reforms of funding, not just career structures (see also Section 7 on working conditions) 
and more merit-based promotion with a clear-cut path to the top. The latter needs more 
positions at later career stages, allowing for the introduction or more widespread adoption 
of a tenure track model that will provide clear-cut career perspectives to a higher number 

98 See, for example, Teichler, U. & Höhle, E.A.H. (eds.), The Work Situation of the Academic 
Profession in Europe: Findings of a Survey in Twelve Countries. Springer London, Limited, 2013; 
Janger, J., Strauss, A. Ų Campbell, D. (2019). “Attractiveness of jobs in academia: a cross-country 
perspective “. Higher Education 78(6), p. 991-1010, 2019. 
99 Enders, J.& Musselin, C. (2008). "Back to the future? The academic professions in the 21st 
century", High. Educ. 2030,, Vol.1 Demography, pp. 125–150; Lissoni, F., Mairesse, J., Montobbio, 
F. & Pezzoni, M. (2011). "Scientific productivity and academic promotion: a study on French and 
Italian physicists", Ind. Corp. Change, 20(1), pp. 253 –294; Pezzoni, M., Sterzi, V. & Lissoni, F. 
(2012). "Career progress in centralized academic systems: Social capital and institutions in France 
and Italy", Res. Policy, 41(4), pp. 704–719. 
100 To illustrate this using the MORE4 findings, the question on satisfaction with working conditions 
includes career perspectives (see Section 7). Southern European countries are at the bottom for 
satisfaction levels, with Portugal on 46%, Italy on 53% and France on 58%. This is certainly also 
linked to a lack of positions due to the economic difficulties in these countries; economically strong 
countries such as Germany (79%) are just at the EU average of 75%, possibly owing to the 
peculiar career paths there. 

88 

 
                                                 
 
of researchers than in a hierarchical, chair-based system.101 Hence, both systems would 
accentuate different parts of a US-style tenure track system, which many researchers 
view as the most attractive career model102. 

Both the probability of getting tenure and the path to the top of the career ladder matter 
considerably to academics making decisions about their employment options. The tenure-
track-model is very attractive, in that it already combines a very clear career perspective 
from the position of a fixed-term researcher with clear merit-based criteria for promotion 
to a tenured position. The “up or out” characteristics of this model make it fairer to young 
academics, because they know at an early stage whether a career in academia is possible 
or not. Particularly for women, the earlier option to stay at a university may be beneficial 
in  terms  of  work-life  balance,  on  condition  that  the  “tenure  clock”  takes  account  of 
maternity leave. Broadly speaking, the compulsory change of university follows in the US 
after the PhD studies; academics in a tenure-track position can then stay at the university, 
rather  than  having  to  switch  to  another  university  (like,  for  example,  in  the  German 
“habilitation system”), but of course there are exceptions. 

In studies on the determinants of job choice in academia, clear-cut career perspectives as 
in a US-style tenure track model are the most important determinant for deciding between 
job  offers.  Early-stage  researchers  reveal  a  substantial  willingness  to  ‘pay’  for  clear-cut 
career perspectives, i.e. they are willing to accept lower salaries in return for a career path 
that leads them to a tenured position based on their performance alone.103 More attractive 
career paths are hence a major lever for increasing the attractiveness of research careers 
vs. outside  options, and also vs.  competing systems such as the US,  where we still see 
asymmetrical mobility and a brain drain of the most talented towards elite US universities. 
While the situation in Europe is changing, with several institutions (e.g. in Germany) having 
now  introduced  specific  tenure  track  models  –  and  the  tenure  track  becoming  less 
commonplace  at  research  universities  in  the  US  –  continued  policy  efforts  are  certainly 
necessary, particularly in terms of making this model the standard career path rather than 
a special career path reserved for only a few.104 

From a system-wide perspective, with the aim of improving the overall research quality of 
universities, potential problems arise from having large shares  of tenured academics, in 
that  incentives  for  continuous  scientific  productivity  over  the  life  cycle  may  diminish.105 

101 Recent reforms, e.g. in Germany and Austria, have created national versions of a tenure track 
path. 
102 See, for example, Brechelmacher, A., Park, E., Ates, G. & Campbell, D.F. (2015). The rocky 
road to tenure–Career paths in academia. In: Academic work and careers in Europe: Trends, 
challenges, perspectives (pp. 13-40). Springer International Publishing, page 23: “Interviewees in 
the countries which recently implemented the tenure-track model expressed hopes that the tenure-
track will provide perspectives to academics and give more clarity and predictability to the 
academic career path. Generally, the introduction and underlying idea behind the tenure-track is 
regarded overwhelmingly positively by junior and senior academics alike.” 
103 Janger, J. & Nowotny, K. (2016). Job choice in academia. Research Policy, 45(8), 1672-1683. 
104 In the US, universities struggle to keep the share of tenured positions constant, as there is 
mismatch between the growth of funding and the growth of early-stage researchers, particular in 
biomedical research (see, for example, Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science, 
Harvard University Press.  
105 Thursby, M., Thursby, J. & Gupta-Mukherjee, S. (2007). ‘Are There Real Effects of Licensing on 
Academic Research? A Life Cycle View’. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Academic 
Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual engines of growth, 63, no. 4: 577–98; Levin, S.G. & Stephan, 

89 

 
                                                 
 
This  may  create  negative  feedback  effects  on  an  institution’s  ability  to  attract  highly 
talented scientists, via the role played by the quality of peers: while it may be possible to 
recruit many talented scientists in a first round, as they age and do not face incentives to 
maintain research productivity, it is possible that their research productivity will diminish, 
so that their role as an attractor of other, early-stage scientists will be reduced. Several 
different options are practised in higher education systems to ensure that high shares of 
tenured  academics  remains  incentivised  to  engage  in  continuous  scientific  productivity.  
Each  of  these  options,  such  as  adjusting  teaching  responsibilities  or  providing  more 
research funding for tenured researchers  on a competitive project funding basis, has its 
own advantages and drawbacks.106  

With regard to gender equality, female researchers are still underrepresented in most of 
the  EU28  countries,  particularly  in  later  career  stages.  Since  2012  their  share  has 
stagnated. Section 14 analyses gender equality in detail. 

Similarly to PhD training, neither EU nor non-EU researchers view intersectoral mobility 
as very positive for recruitment and career progression, and entrepreneurship and IPR 
skills are deemed to be much less important for future careers than transferable skills that 
are closer to core  research activities107. Moreover, dual careers involving a position in a 
private firm and at an HEI or public research organisation are also rare. The pressure to 
excel academically in terms of publications may reduce incentives to engage with sectors 
outside academia. This merits further research, as in principle a more diverse set of career 
paths, including positions more oriented towards teaching or research on applied problems 
might make it easier for researchers to keep one foot in academia at a time when the rising 
number  of  researchers  is  increasing  competition  for  available  positions.  The  MORE4 
findings hence point to the fairly slow emergence of new types of (academic) career paths 
such as dual positions with industry or the recognition of alternative research outputs or 
intersectoral mobility for recruitment and career progression; academic researchers seem 
to value more traditional research careers. 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

Current efforts in terms of recruitment, career progression and career paths should clearly 
be  continued  and  intensified.  This  includes  funding  for  mobility  and  career  perspectives 
(ERC, MSCA, etc.), particularly in countries where there is a lack of funding for mobility 
stints, as international mobility is  perceived to be  very important  for  career  progression 
and recruitment. Support for mutual learning continues to be crucial, such as in the form 
of  the  Policy  Support  Facility  (PSF)  which  works  specifically  to  address  the  danger  of 
divergence between research and innovation, and also works on the higher education and 
science  system.  Mutual  learning  exercises  within  the  PSF  could  look  at  the  question  of 
attractive  career  paths  for  early-stage  researchers.  Further  opening  up  the  ERA,  and 
making it easier for talented researchers to move to another country within the EU, could 

P.E. (1991). ‘Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists’, Am. Econ. 
Rev., 81(1), pp. 114–132. 
106 Janger, J., Strauss, A. & Campbell, D. (2019). ‘Attractiveness of jobs in academia: a cross-
country perspective’, Higher Education 78(6), p. 991-1010. 
107 This average perception does, of course, not exclude that there are researchers who view 
intersectoral mobility as positive, or that for some HEI positions, intersectoral mobility may be a 
requirement. 

90 

 
                                                 
 
lead to the concentration of the most talented researchers in the most attractive research 
institutions.  Measures  to  support  weaker  research  systems  to  catch  up  to  the  better 
performing ones are hence of continuing importance. 

In terms of recruitment and career progression, the new ERA Communication signals 
a  strong  commitment  to  providing  an  impetus  at  European  level  to  further  improve 
research careers, including training to acquire the skills necessary for a career in research. 
More  specifically,  with  regard  to  individual  instruments,  by  November  2020,  569 
organisations had received the HR Excellence in Research Award108 (up from 264 in 2017), 
as  part  of  the  HRS4R  (The  Human  Resources  Strategy  for  Researchers);  the  Charter  & 
Code  principles  had  been  endorsed  by  more  than  1,250  research  organisations,  and  up 
from 910 in 2017. EURAXESS is a major initiative providing information on jobs and career 
perspectives. Awareness of its existence among researchers working abroad has increased 
considerably,  ranging  between  48%  (among  EU  researchers  working  abroad)  and  52% 
(among non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU) – a considerable increase 
over MORE3 (40% and 29% respectively). Variation exists between countries with respect 
to awareness and use of the EURAXESS portal. In some countries (e.g. Austria) public and 
international advertisement of new positions on EURAXESS is compulsory. The European 
Commission intends to further strengthen EURAXESS by turning it into the ERA4you portal.  

In terms of gender, a continuation and intensification of further efforts also appears to be 
necessary. Section 14 provides further detail on this. 

With regard to fostering dual careers, or intersectoral mobility during careers, more 
research seems to be necessary to show potential ways to increase intersectoral mobility, 
as  it  is  currently  neither  perceived  to  be  valuable  for  career  progression,  nor  widely 
practiced. The European Commission intends to further foster such mobility, as a way  of 
both providing alternative career paths and improving the valorisation of research results 
(see the new ERA Communication). However, academic researchers in both the EU and US 
appear, on average, to be more interested in traditional academic careers, though there is 
substantial  variation  between  countries.  A  wider  diversity  of  positions  and  careers  in 
research, dedicated to the engagement with business and  society (similar to the case of 
specific  PhD  programmes),  could  be  investigated.  For  example,  ‘before  and  after’ 
comparisons  could  be  made  of  respondents’  perceptions  of  a  broader  range  of  careers, 
once they have received information on what different careers in different sectors entail in 
practice.109 Examples could be a senior lecturer who has industry experience (or still works 
in industry), has a higher level of teaching responsibility and less pressure to publish in 
top journals; or so-called “professors of practice”, who would also be important in terms 
of making students aware of outside opportunities. 

It is evident from the findings of the ERA progress report of 2018 and the accompanying 
national reports that over recent years, a number of measures have been implemented at 

108 These institutions have signed the Code of Conduct and provided the Commission with a gap 
analysis and a solid action plan on how to concretely implement the elements of the Code of 
Conduct. This indicates the strong commitment of these institutions. 
109 Such information need not always be based on new surveys; at national level there may be 
researcher surveys asking about different career paths or roles for academic researchers, e.g. in 
Germany, the Wissenschaftsbarometer asks about perception of purely teaching oriented 
professorships, https://www.wb.dzhw.eu/downloads/wibef_barometer2020.pdf 

91 

 
                                                 
 
national level that aim to address the recruitment, career progression and career paths 
of researchers: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In  Portugal,  the  main  progress  of  the  NAP  under  priority  3  relates  to  a  higher 
investment  in  scientific  employment,  with  250  new  post-doctoral  contracts 
(replacing  grants)  in  2018,  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  scholarships 
financed for advanced training. 
In Austria, one of the key developments in the area of career progression  has 
been the development and implementation of a career model at non-university 
research  institutions,  namely  the  Austrian  Academy  of  Sciences  (OeAW)  and 
Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST-Austria). 
In the Czech Republic, the Action Plan for Human Resources Development and 
Gender  Equality  in  R&D  was  drafted  by  the  Ministry  of  Education,  Youth  and 
Sports  and  approved  by  the  government  in  January  2018.  The  Action  Plan 
addresses a number of the most pressing topics in relation to the development 
of  human  resources  in  R&D,  including  gender  equality  and  mainstreaming,  as 
well  as  support  and  promotion  for  PhD  students  and  early  stage  researchers, 
international mobility and the quality of institutional environment. 
In Germany, the federal government and the Länder have created a programme 
to  improve  the  predictability  and  transparency  of  career  paths  from  2016  to 
2032.  The  programme  establishes  tenure-track  professorships  at  German 
universities and provides additional funding for tenure-track professorships. In 
addition,  more  RPOs  in  Germany  have  been  awarded  the  ‘HRS4R’  logo  since 
2016.  In  particular,  the  institutes  of  the  Leibniz  Association,  one  of  the  major 
German  RPOs,  have  steadily  increased  the  percentage  of  their  job  offers 
published  on  EURAXESS  Jobs  portal  (from  31.5%  in  2014  to  nearly  40%  in 
2017). 
In  October  2016,  the  Foundation  for  Research  and  Innovation  (ELIDEK)  was 
established  by  Law  4429/2016  in  Greece.  ELIDEK,  which  is  funded  by  the 
European Investment Bank (EUR 180 million) and the Greek Public Investment 
Program (EUR 60 million), aims to further enhance research and human capital 
development, to retain highly-qualified researchers in Greece and to address the 
problem of brain-drain. ELIDEK has already begun its activities and awarded 582 
scholarships to selected PhD candidates (worth EUR 13.5m) in June 2017. It has 
also launched two calls for proposals in 2017 supporting post-doctoral research 
(a budget of EUR 34 million) and the ‘Research Programmes of ELIDEK’ (a budget 
of EUR 53 million). 

- 

-  Spain saw an increase the number of RPOs awarded the ‘HRS4R’ logo for taking 
up the Charter and Code in their policies and practices. This process is expected 
to positively influence the publication of job offers and researcher satisfaction of 
the academic hiring processes in the immediate future. 
In Croatia, positive changes were largely influenced by the 2013 amendments to 
the  Act  on  Science  and  Higher  Education.  This  legislation  integrated  the  main 
principles of the Charter and Code.  In addition, the recruitment of researchers 
to  public  research  organisations  has  also  been  redefined.  It  is  compulsory  to 
publish  open  vacancies  in  the  Official  Gazette  of  the  Republic  of  Croatia, 
EURAXESS jobs portal and the website of the organisation. In addition, in 2017, 
Croatia  introduced  new  regulations  on  the  conditions  for  promotion  to  higher 
scientific grades. These regulations introduced more rigorous minimum criteria 
for the promotion of scientists to higher scientific/teaching grades.  
In  Italy,  progress  mainly  relates  to  the  uptake  of  the  principles  set  out  in  the 
European  Charter  for  Researchers  on  open,  transparent  and  merit-based 
recruitment procedures. Progress observed under priority 3 relates to the higher 

- 

92 

 
percentage  of  universities  and  public  research  organisations  awarded  the 
‘HRS4R’ logo, rising from 10.6% in 2016 to 15.3% in 2018. 

-  Similarly, in Poland since 2014 a large number of research and higher education 
institutions have endorsed the European Charter and Code for Researchers, and 
the  number  of  institutions  receiving  the  HR  excellence  in  Research  label  has 
increased around tenfold. This has been a direct consequence of systemic efforts 
by national authorities in this area, with the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher 
Education encouraging the country’s research and higher education institutions 
to adopt the principles of the Charter and Code. 

-  The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) has established Individual 
Grants for Future Research Leaders, to support young scientists of the highest 
standing  from  Sweden  who  have  the  potential  to  become  future  leaders  of 
academic and/or industrial research. Each grant amounts to approximately EUR 
1.2 million and covers a period of five years. 

93 

 
 
 
7.  WORKING CONDITIONS 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Section 6) and MORE4 Indicators report on researchers (based on 
Eurostat data). 

Once  researchers have  begun a  research career, the working conditions in their job are 
crucial to their scientific productivity, as well as to their decision to stay in research or take 
on  another  job.  Researchers,  particularly  academic  researchers,  experience  a  highly 
competitive working environment. The “up-or-out” nature of research naturally results in 
a  high  proportion  of  researchers  dropping  out  of  research  careers.  While  the  specific 
“winner-takes-all” aspect of (academic) research might lead to the undesired dropping out 
of  highly  talented  researchers,  competition  among  researchers  can  enhance  scientific 

94 

 
 
productivity and lead to new and pioneering insights. However, this holds only true if the 
selection criteria are largely merit-based and decisions to leave the academic labour market 
are not due to poor working conditions110. 

Research careers are not only terminated due to low levels of productivity. One study111 
shows  that  despite  high  labour  demand,  the  number  of  young  American  physician-
scientists  was  stagnating  at  the  time  investigated,  due  to  more  attractive  working 
conditions  and  secure  career  paths  outside  academia.  The  availability  of  funding  and 
research  grants  as  a  measure  to  ensure  the  continuation  of  career  paths  and  reduce 
insecurity, is found not only to enhance productivity112, but also to reduce the chances of 
researchers leaving the profession113. Aside from financial support, there a number of other 
factors (e.g. collaboration possibilities, teaching and social recognition) influence research 
quality, as well as scientific productivity and the transition and diffusion of knowledge, and 
the wellbeing and satisfaction of researchers with their job. 

7.1.  Key findings114 

The infographic above shows the evolution of the perception of satisfaction with working 
conditions between 2016 and 2019, based on the systematisation of MORE3. It is clustered 
into  aspects  relating  to  individual  satisfaction  (intellectual  challenge,  dynamic  work 
environment, level of responsibility and quality of life); social environment (social status, 
reputation of employer, contribution to society); financial security (job security, pension 
plan  and  social  security);  and  knowledge  production  (research  funding  and  autonomy, 
balance  between  teaching  and  research,  access  to  research  equipment,  quality  of 
education  and  training,  working  with  leading  scientists);  as  well  as  career  and  mobility 
perspectives, which affect both knowledge production and financial security. By comparison 
with  MORE3,  there  is  an  upward  trend,  particularly  in  relation  to  mobility  and  career 
aspects. 

This  myriad  of  working  conditions  that  are  potentially  relevant  to  researchers  makes  it 
difficult  to  single  out  those  that  make  a  particular  contribution  to  perceptions  of  the 
attractiveness of a job in academia. MORE2 used a ‘stated choice’ approach to identify the 
working  conditions  most  relevant  to  deciding  between  jobs  (and  hence  also  the 
attractiveness  of  research  systems,  if  these  conditions  are  similar  within  research 

110 Geuna, A. & Shibayama, S. (2015). "Moving Out Of Academic Research: Why Scientists Stop 
Doing Research?" In: Geuna, A. (ed.), Glob. Mobil. Res. Sci. Econ. Who Goes Why, Elsevier, pp. 
271–303. 
111 Donowitz, M., Germino, G., Cominelli, F. & Anderson, J.M., (2007). "The attrition of young 
physician-scientists: problems and potential solutions", Gastroenterology, 132(2), pp. 477–480. 
112 Dasgupta, P. & David, P.A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research policy, 23(5), 
487-521. 
113 Geuna, A. & Shibayama, S. (2015). "Moving Out of Academic Research: Why Scientists Stop 
Doing Research?" In: Geuna, A. (ed.), Glob. Mobil. Res. Sci. Econ. Who Goes Why, Elsevier, pp. 
271–303. 
114 Due to the often unchanged nature of the results and the continuing policy relevance of the 
topics raised, also in light of the new ERA communication 2020, several parts of this text are 
unchanged with respect to the MORE3 study. 

95 

 
                                                 
 
systems)115. Based on this analysis, MORE3 and 4 conceptualise the main relevant working 
conditions as falling into one of three categories, namely: 

-  Working  conditions  not  directly  affecting  scientific  knowledge 
production,  such  as  conditions  relevant  to  extrinsic  pecuniary  motivations  to 
engage in a research career (e.g. salary and pension entitlements), and working 
conditions affecting social and content-specific motivations for a research career 
(dark blue bars in Figure 8).  

-  Working  conditions  affecting  scientific  knowledge  production,  such  as 
research funding, working with stimulating peers or career-path determined time 
horizon available for implementing one’s research agenda (medium blue coloured 
bars in Figure 8). 

-  Working  conditions  relevant  to  both  knowledge  production  and 
pecuniary  motivations,  such  as  career  and  mobility  perspectives  (light  blue 
coloured bar in Figure 8). 

The  working  conditions  that  are  crucial  for  deciding  between  jobs  or  for  sustainably 
attracting early-stage researchers into research careers are mainly those that are relevant 
for  knowledge  production,  for  doing  research,  and  relate  much  less  to  material  working 
conditions or quality of life. All else being equal, while salaries are important, researchers 
are “willing to pay” – i.e. to sacrifice potential salary – for working conditions that enable 
them to implement their research agenda. The attractiveness of research jobs is hence a 
result of factors influencing how well researchers can do their jobs. These include, among 
others,  the  extent  of  research  autonomy,  the  quality  of  their  peers,  their  funding,  the 
balance of time between teaching and research, as well as long-term career perspectives. 

Figure 8 illustrates the difficult choices faced by students embarking on a career in research 
– a very high level of satisfaction with intellectual challenge and job-specific content runs 
up  against  uncertain  career  perspectives  and  less  satisfactory  funding  of  research.  The 
same pattern is found in the survey concentrating on researchers currently working outside 
the EU (see the MORE4 Global survey report). This means that attracting more people into 
research careers – an EU policy goal to tackle the challenges of greater knowledge-based 
competition, and the role of knowledge in tackling climate change, among other issues – 
is clearly linked to funding and career perspectives. The job of a researcher is attractive in 
itself – researchers find great satisfaction in the content and intellectual challenges of their 
work, but the conditions have to foster the actual activity of research. 

115 IDEA Consult et al. (2013). MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Final report. European Commission, 
DG Research and Innovation. 
Janger, J. & Nowotny, K. (2016). "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683. 

96 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 8: Satisfaction with working conditions (EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) – Figure 50 in the MORE4 EU HE report. 
Notes: 

Based on question 32: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your current 
position” 
(2019: n=7,603-8,414;2016: n=8,382-9,303) 

Working conditions not directly affecting scientific knowledge production  

Regarding financial security, roughly two out of three EU researchers feel either well paid 
(22%) or reasonably well paid (48%), while 20% feel they are only paid enough to make 
ends meet and the remaining 8% indicated that they struggle to make ends meet given 
their inadequate salary. The total share of researchers feeling well or reasonably well paid 
(70%)  has  increased  slightly  since  2016  (67%).  The  vast  majority  of  those  researchers 
currently  working  in  the  EU  are  content  with  social  security  (87%).  Satisfaction  with 
remuneration  among  part-time  researchers  working  more  than  50%  of  full-time  is  on  a 
similar level to that of full-time researchers (around 70%); however, there is a clear gap 
in terms of satisfaction with job security (87% vs. 64%). On average, 56% of researchers 
in  the  EU  feel  less  well  paid  than  their  counterparts  outside  academia,  with  female  and 
later-stage  researchers  more  likely  to  report  being  dissatisfied  than  early-stage 
researchers116.  

Among  the  EU  Member  States  and  Associated  Countries,  significant  differences  can  be 
found,  which  generally  align  with  the  level  of  economic  development  in  each  country  – 
particularly in the case of financial security. While in Luxembourg or Germany, high shares 
of researchers perceive their salaries as reasonable (92%), researchers in some Eastern 
and  South  European  countries  perceive  things  differently:  in  Greece,  for  example,  only 
23%  of  the  researchers  agree  that  they  receive  reasonable  remuneration  (Figure  9). 
Similarly, in all Western (and, in particular, Nordic) EU Member States, at least three out 

116 This is based on the perceptions of mostly academic researchers. 

97 

 
 
                                                 
 
of  four  researchers  are  satisfied  with  their  pension  plan,  while  in  Southern  and  Eastern 
countries report these shares are around 50% (in Greece, the share is just 39%). In terms 
of financial security, the gap between part-time and full-time workers is particularly high 
in  Southern  European  countries  (satisfaction  with  pension  plans:  48%  vs.  66%),  while 
there is much less difference between part- and full-time employees in Northern European 
countries.  

Of those researchers currently working outside the EU in non-EU OECD countries, a lower 
share feel well or reasonably well paid (57%). In addition, the share of researchers satisfied 
with social security is lower (67%) than in the EU. This contrasts with 2016, but can be 
explained by the higher share of respondents from economically less advanced countries 
in the MORE4 Global Survey (section 5.2). Similarly, 53% of researchers outside the EU 
feel less well paid than their counterparts outside academia, however; researchers are less 
likely to feel worse paid in later career stages, in contrast to the results of the MORE4 EU 
HE survey117 (see the MORE4 Global survey118). While dissatisfaction with salary can affect 
researchers’  mobility  decisions,  the  literature  and  our  results  suggest  that  the  key 
motivators  for  international  mobility  are  a  good  research  environment  and  promising 
career perspectives (see our discussion in Section 9); salary ranks very low as a motive 
for moving. 

Within  the  EU,  the  shares  of  researchers  satisfied  at  work  and  with  their  social 
environment  and  recognition  are  high  in  terms  of  every  individual  aspect  included 
(86%-95%).  While these shares are all slightly higher than the  corresponding  shares of 
researchers currently working outside Europe (68%-86%), the ranking of individual issues 
remains  the  same.  Approval  rates  are  highest  for  intellectual  challenge  and  level  of 
responsibility in researchers’ working positions, and are a little lower for quality of life and 
dynamic  work  environment  (see  MORE4  Global  survey).  High  levels  of  satisfaction  with 
social  security  and  content-specific  aspects  of  jobs  (intellectual  challenge  etc.)  may 
compensate  for  dissatisfaction  with  pay  when  compared  with  working  outside  academia 
and, and contribute to making research careers attractive. 

117 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
118 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

98 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 9: Perceptions of remuneration by country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE Survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016) – Figure 52 in MORE4 EU HE report. 
Notes: 

Based on question 33: “How do you feel about your remuneration package (if you do not take into 
account a second income or, if applicable, the income of your partner)? 
(2019: n=9,299; 2016: n=10,394) 

Working conditions for scientific knowledge production 

A country’s capabilities to contribute to the frontiers of scientific knowledge are driven by 
the capabilities of individual researchers.  Working conditions  that influence the scientific 
productivity of individual researchers are crucial to attracting excellent foreign researchers, 
increasing the performance of the existing scientific staff, and helping to build the number 
of promising junior scientists, i.e. drawing more people into research careers. Among these 
conditions  are  the  financial  support  (research  funding  and  access  to  research 
infrastructure)  and  intellectual  support  provided  to  researchers  (quality  of  peers),  the 
balance in the amount of time spent between teaching and research, as well as research 
autonomy. Finally, career path elements also influence scientific knowledge production, as 
career-determined  time  horizons  for  research  agendas  can  change  the  content  of 
research119. 

The  majority  of  researchers  in  the  EU28,  particularly  those  in  later  career  stages,  are 
satisfied with the intellectual support they receive (opportunities to work with leading 
scientists: 85%; quality of education and training: 88%). In terms of financial support, 
the  share  of  researchers  satisfied  with  their  access  to  research  facilities  and  equipment 
(79%)  is  almost  30  percentage  points  higher  than  the  share  of  researchers  who  are 
satisfied with the availability of research funding (52%), which is higher among later-stage 
researchers  compared  with  those  in  early  career  stages.  A  high  share  of  researchers  is 

119 Petersen, A.M., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, H.E. & Pammolli, F. (2012). “Persistence and uncertainty 
in the academic career”, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109(14), pp. 5213–5218. 

99 

 
 
                                                 
 
satisfied  with  research  autonomy  (91%;  2016:  89%),  although  this  figure  includes 
somewhat  fewer  early-stage  researchers  than  leading  R4  researchers.  In  contrast,  the 
share of researchers satisfied with their balance between teaching and research time 
is  considerably  lower  (70%),  with  a  greater  share  of  satisfied  researchers  among  early 
stage R1 than among leading R4 researchers. Overall, the teaching workload has gone up 
slightly  compared  with  MORE3  (based  on  a  question  in  the  EU  HE  survey  on  teaching 
activities).  

Although the average share of researchers satisfied with research funding is higher within 
the EU than outside it (35%), the share of satisfied researchers working in the US and in 
Anglo-Saxon  countries  45%  and  49%)  is  considerably  higher  (than  the  EU  average. 
Outside Europe, the shares  of  researchers  satisfied with their balance between teaching 
and  research  time  (58%),  and  the  quality  of  training  and  education (69%)  are  lower  in 
general (except in Anglo-Saxon countries including the US: 74%; see the MORE4 Global 
survey report).  

Within  the  EU,  the  geographical  pattern  observed  in  terms  of  satisfaction  with  research 
funding shows that poorer Eastern European countries (with the exception of Poland), and 
in particular Southern European countries, are at the lower end of the spectrum (Figure 
10).  A  similar  pattern  appears  in  terms  of  access  to  research  facilities  and  equipment 
(Netherlands:  96%,  Greece:  51%)  as  well  as  in  terms  of  the  balance  between  teaching 
and research activities (Luxembourg: 90%, Portugal: 46%), with higher shares of satisfied 
early-stage researchers especially in Northern and Western European countries (Table 2). 
Satisfaction  with  opportunities  to  work  with  leading  scientists  ranges  between  53%  and 
95%, and corresponds roughly with countries’ performance in terms of research excellence 
(as  measured,  for  instance,  by  the  EU’s  composite  indicator  of  research  excellence120). 
Researchers working in Anglo-Saxon and Nordic higher education systems such as Finland 
or  the  UK,  are  more  satisfied  on  average  with  their  opportunities  to  work  with  leading 
scientists  (90%)  than  researchers  working  in  Continental  higher  education  systems 
(approximately 84%) or those in Southern Europe (83%). 

120 https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/composite-indicators-research-excellence 

100 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 10: Individual satisfaction with research funding, by country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016) – Figure 66 in MORE4 EU HE report 
Notes: 

Share of researchers satisfied with the availability of research funding. 
Based on question 32: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your current 
position” 
(2019: n=9,019, 2016: n=10,075) 

Table 2: Individual satisfaction with access to research facilities and the balance 
between teaching and research, by career stage 

RESEARCH FACILITIES 

BALANCE TEACHING RESEARCH 

North 

South 

West 

East 

EU28 

R1 

92,2% 

78,3% 

88,2% 

70,2% 

84,7% 

R2 

87,4% 

62,8% 

91,2% 

62,8% 

81,9% 

R3 

87,4% 

64,5% 

81,1% 

67,4% 

75,4% 

R4 

88,0% 

63,8% 

84,0% 

81,3% 

79,5% 

R1 

80,7% 

70,6% 

82,7% 

69,2% 

78,8% 

R2 

74,5% 

57,3% 

90,9% 

61,6% 

80,2% 

R3 

67,6% 

62,6% 

65,4% 

58,8% 

63,2% 

R4 

78,4% 

64,9% 

76,6% 

75,1% 

74,3% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) – Table 15 and Table 19 in MORE4 EU HE report 
Notes:  

Share of researchers satisfied with their balance between teaching and research time. 
Average shares of the following country groups are shown: East (CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, PL, SI, SK, BG, RO, 
HR); North (NO, SE, FI, DK, IS); South (PT, ES, IT, EL, MT, CY); West (BE, FR, DE, NL, LU, AT, UK, IE, 
CH) and EU28. 
Green = high compared to the average; Red = low compared to the average. 
Based on question 32: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your current 
position” 
(n=8,105-9,019) 

101 

 
 
  
  
Career and mobility perspectives 

As  outlined  previously,  career  perspectives  (the  prospect  of  a  tenured  position)  matter 
both for scientific knowledge production and for job and financial security. We therefore 
treat  this  aspect  as  a  cross-cutting  issue  relevant  for  both  remuneration  and  scientific 
knowledge production. Mobility perspectives shape collaboration patterns, so that they also 
influence scientific knowledge production. Team size and average number of co-authors is 
on  the  rise,  so  that  mobility  perspectives  become  more  important  overall  for  scientific 
productivity and career success.121 

In  terms  of  both  career  and  mobility  perspectives,  three  out  of  four  researchers  in  the 
EU28 are satisfied with their current position (75% each; 2016: 68 and 73% respectively). 
However,  the  share  of  researchers  satisfied  with  their  career  perspectives  in  Southern 
European countries (62%) contrasts somewhat with the rest of Europe (79-82%). Overall, 
the average share of researchers satisfied with their career perspectives outside the EU is 
lower (57%, with the exception US and Anglo-Saxon countries in general: 74%). A similar 
pattern is observed with regard to perceptions of mobility perspectives (Southern Europe: 
64%; Continental Europe: 84%; EU28: 75%, 2016: 64%). Outside Europe (in the US) the 
average share of researchers satisfied with mobility perspectives is 25 percentage points 
lower than the EU28 average (13pp in 2016) (see the MORE4 Global survey report). 

The lowest shares of researchers satisfied with their career perspectives are found among 
those in early career stages, particularly in career stage R2 (followed by R1); the highest 
are located in the group of leading R4 researchers. To some extent, this might reflect the 
higher  shares  of  early-stage  researchers  who  have  fixed-term  contracts,  compared  with 
leading  researchers.  This is  plausible,  as  R4  researchers  have  made  it  to  the  top  of  the 
career path and hence enjoy their current position; uncertainty  about the feasibility of a 
research career is highest at the R2 stage, when career progression often depends on the 
assessment  of  research  performance  by  others.  In  terms  of  satisfaction  with  mobility 
perspectives,  no  large  differences  can  be  observed  between  career  stages  (these  range 
between 73% for R3 and 77% for R4; see the MORE4 HE EU survey report).  

Overall, comparing all aspects of working conditions irrespective of specific career stage, 
researchers’ satisfaction is lowest in relation to funding, the balance between teaching and 
research, and career perspectives. 

7.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

The  policy  context  regarding  the  working  conditions  of  researchers  in  the  EU  is 
characterised  by  a  variety  of  policy  aims  emanating  from,  for  example,  the  Council 
Conclusions  on  young  researchers,  the  Communications  on  creating  and  deepening  the 
ERA, and the agenda for the modernisation of higher education in the EU. Similar to the 
case of PhD training and recruitment/career paths, a number of general performance goals 
follows from these policies: 

-  Quantity  of  researchers:  as  with  PhD  training  and  career  paths,  working 
conditions need to be attractive to keep researchers in research careers. Among 

121 Pavlidis, I., Petersen, A.M. & Semendeferi, I. (2014). Together we stand. Nature Physics, 
10(10), 700-702; Walsh, J.P. & Lee, Y.N. (2015). The bureaucratization of science. Research 
Policy, 44(8), 1584-1600. 

102 

 
                                                 
 
the  various  working  conditions,  those  affecting  scientific  productivity  are 
particularly important. 

-  Quantity  of  research:  the  EU  aims  for  R&D  expenditures  of  3%  of  GDP  by 

2020. 

- 

-  Quality  of  research:  attractive  working  conditions  are  crucial  to  ensuring 
researchers can fulfil their potential and contribute to EU research excellence.  
International  competitiveness  of  research  jobs  in  the  EU:  worldwide 
competition for the most talented researchers means that working conditions in 
the EU must be attractive enough to entice the best, ensuring brain circulation 
rather than brain drain.  

-  Reducing intra-EU variation in research performance: reducing both brain 
drain,  notably  from  weaker  regions,  as  well  as  wide  regional  variations  in 
research and innovation performance, are key aims of the ERA. 

-  Gender equality among researchers: reducing gender-related differences in 
working conditions in order to increase the attractiveness to women of research 
careers, and to ensure full exploitation of female researchers’ potential. 

In  addition  to  many  initiatives  at  national  level,  the  above  goals  are  addressed  from 
different angles at EU level: 

-  Recommendations and guidelines for Member States, as in the European Charter 
for  Researchers,  stress  the  need  for  career  development  opportunities  and 
mobility  perspectives,  which  are  important  working  conditions;  Council 
Conclusions on young researchers, which call upon Member States to improve 
career perspectives, the research-teaching balance, national funding of research 
and mobility, and collaboration schemes. 

-  Providing  funding  for  individual  researchers,  e.g.  through  ERC  and  MSCA 
schemes,  which  provide  several  key  working  conditions  such  as  access  to 
research infrastructure and research autonomy. 

-  Project-based research funding such as through Horizon 2020, helps researchers 

fund their research. 

-  The  EU  encourages  Member  States  to  implement  policies  that  boost  gender 
equality,  in  particular  in  decision-making  positions,  inter  alia  by  providing 
monitoring of gender balance in research (e.g. the SHE figures; see Section 14 
for more details). 

-  With the new ERA Communication, the European Commission intends to develop 
new  tools  and  initiate  policies  that  are  relevant  to  improving  the  working 
conditions of researchers, e.g. through priority 1 on investments, Member States 
are called upon to increase research funding, which would have a clear positive 
impact on working conditions for researchers. 

103 

 
What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
working conditions? 

First, the MORE4 findings indicate that research jobs are attractive by their nature – 
researchers are intrinsically motivated because they like what they are doing, in terms of 
intellectual challenge, responsibility, social recognition etc. This means that for research 
careers  to  be  attractive,  it  is  sufficient  to  provide  good  working  conditions.  It  is  not 
necessary to convince students that research might be an interesting job option for them. 
Moreover, research based on the MORE2 data shows that researchers are willing to trade-
off  material  working  conditions  such  as  salary  against  working  conditions  for  research, 
including research autonomy and funding, longer time horizons for their research agendas 
(in the form  of long-term career perspectives), etc. Working conditions for  research are 
hence drivers of attractiveness for jobs in research, more so than salaries, quality of life 
and other non-research related working conditions.122 

Second, there has been an upward trend in satisfaction with working conditions across 
the board since 2012. Linking these findings to national policy developments would require 
an in depth country-level analysis, which is outside the scope of this study. Satisfaction is 
lowest with respect to research funding, career perspectives and the balance between time 
for teaching and time for research. The last two issues are of particular concern to early 
stage  researchers,  because  they  are  most  in  need  of  stable  career  perspectives  and 
because  evaluation  benchmarks  are  often  geared  towards  excellence  in  research  rather 
than  teaching.  At  an  international  level,  a  similar  pattern  of  lower  satisfaction  can  be 
observed with respect to these aspects of working conditions, with the US usually showing 
much higher levels of satisfaction. 

Third,  as  with  career  paths  and  recruitment,  a  picture  of  heterogeneity  emerges  with 
regard to satisfaction with working conditions across the EU, although this time the fault 
lines relate less to different higher education systems (as in Section 6 on career paths), 
but  rather  to  economic  development,  public  budgets  for  research  and  research 
performance.  Here,  very  low  satisfaction  in  with  salaries,  pension  plans,  the  quality  of 
peers  and  research  funding  can  be  seen  in  certain  Southern  and  Eastern  European 
countries.  This  heterogeneity  may  impact  on  the  completion  of  the  single  knowledge 
market  in  the  EU  and  on  prospects  for  achieving  symmetrical  rather  than  asymmetrical 
mobility of talented researchers in the EU (i.e. it may contribute to brain drain rather than 
brain circulation). 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

Heterogeneity in perceptions of working conditions across the EU can be addressed 
through a variety of approaches.  

- 

First,  overall  economic  policy  towards  convergence,  e.g.  through  the  ESIF  – 
structural  funds –  will  also  work  indirectly  to  promote  the  convergence  of 
research systems, as wages, researchers’ pensions and research funding budgets 
can  grow  more  quickly  in  ‘catching-up’  countries.  The  ESIF  contribute  to  the 
implementation  of  smart  specialisation  strategies  focused  on  matching  the 
strengths of national research and innovation systems with business needs.  

122 Janger, J. & Nowotny, K. (2016). Job choice in academia. Research Policy, 45(8), 1672-1683. 

104 

 
                                                 
 
-  Second,  EU  research  funding  can  play  a  role  in  counteracting  low  satisfaction 
with national research funding. However, low success rates in Horizon 2020 imply 
that  only  the  very  best  will  make  it,  and  these  are  more  likely  to  come  from 
successful  research  systems  in  economically  developed  countries.  Most  of  the 
basic and applied research funding of the EU (Horizon 2020, ERC) is distributed 
on the basis of excellence – with good reason – but this also means that to date, 
it  primarily  benefits  countries  with  well-performing  research  systems  or 
individually  excellent  researchers.  EU  institutions  are  considering  how  the 
research and innovation divide between EU Member States and regions  can be 
reduced, and how the problem of brain drain from less developed regions can be 
mitigated.  This  is  also  an  explicit  widening  objective  in  the  new  ERA 
Communication (priority 2, access to excellence). One way to combine efficiency 
with  equity  may  be  to  increase  research  infrastructure  funding  to  struggling 
countries, which would still be open to researchers from across the EU, so that 
they  could  serve  as  European  platforms,  while  still  generating  positive  local 
spillovers.  This  merits  further  research  though  –  first,  it  has  to  some  extent 
already  been  pursued  by  the  structural  funds;  and  second,  simply  funding 
infrastructure is seldom enough – there also need to be researchers who can put 
that  infrastructure  to  use.  Institutional  co-funding  of  tertiary  education  was 
discussed  in  Section  5  on  PhD  training.  The  European  Universities  initiative123 
could  also  be  relevant;  for  the  moment,  however,  it  is  oriented  more  towards 
teaching.  Certainly  relevant  will  be  the  possibility  under  Horizon  Europe  to 
combine its funding with payments from the structural funds. 

-  Third, if national research funding is relatively low (as outlined above), then the 
allocation  mode  used  for  funding  matters  all  the  more:  rather  than 
indiscriminately funding research institutions through base funding, a variety of 
funding  modes  could  concentrate  funding  on  the  most  promising  research 
projects or early-stage researchers. This could include ex-ante peer-review on a 
project-by-project  basis,  or  ex-post  funding  mechanisms  such  as  the  REF 
(Research  Excellence  Framework)  in  England.  Such  mechanisms  have  both 
advantages  and  disadvantages,  which  will  need  to  be  screened  in  a  country-
specific  context  to  reflect  national  idiosyncrasies  that  may  impact  upon  the 
effectiveness of such allocation mechanisms.124 The Policy Support Facility (PSF) 
can help countries to implement such mechanisms (see below). More or stronger 
financial incentives for higher education institutions, which include (i) funding for 
excellence  initiatives;  (ii)  competitive/performance-based  funding;  and  (iii) 
performance agreements, are also a focus of the new ERA Communication, which 
has an agenda of institutionally transforming of universities. 
Fourth,  the  sharing  of  best  practice  and  mutual  learning  exercises  (MLE),  as 
organised  by  the  EU  within  the  PSF  (see  discussion  in  Section  6)  can  be  very 
important. MLEs can focus on which working conditions to prioritise, given limited 
budgets. The MORE4 findings indicate a focus on research funding (the allocation 
of funding); career paths/perspectives (as mentioned in Section 6); and on the 
balance  between  teaching  and  research.  This  balance  matters  more  to  early 
stage  researchers,  as  they  are  judged  on  research  performance.  In  order  to 
introduce  flexibility  into  universities,  as  the  scientific  productivity  of  tenured 

- 

123 https://ec.europa.eu/education/education-in-the-eu/european-education-area/european-
universities-initiative_en 
124 For example, project funding with low success rates leads to risk aversion, and can entail 
significant time in writing proposals; ex-post research assessments can be cumbersome and cost a 
lot of money. 

105 

 
                                                 
 
researchers declines, their teaching hours could be increased to free up resources 
for  promising  young  researchers.  Such  adjustments  may  come  at  the  explicit 
request of more established researchers, with the aim of imparting more of their 
knowledge  and  skills  to  students;  it  may  also  be  the  outcome  of  evaluations 
organised  by  universities  themselves.  National  legal  frameworks  should  in 
principle  allow  such  flexibility.  Given  the  known  willingness  of  early  stage 
researchers  to  sacrifice  some  potential  salary  in  exchange  for  good  research 
conditions, there is a chance that well-designed careers and positions in research 
can compensate for the economic disadvantages of ‘catching-up’ countries, such 
as  lower  salaries.  To  allow  for  the  long-term  planning  of  research  agendas,  in 
addition to career perspectives, long-term (national) funding commitments could 
increase budgeting reliability and planning security. 
Fifth,  regularly  monitoring  the  attractiveness  of  working  conditions  or  jobs 
offered  to  researchers  could  also  help  to  identify  divergent  trends  at  an  early 
stage.  The  new  ERA  Communication  signals  that  the  European  Commission 
intends to establish an observatory on brain circulation and research careers. 

- 

At the same time, the country snapshots in the ERA Progress Report 2018 also reveal that 
multiple initiatives and actions have been implemented at national level to address the 
working conditions of researchers: 

- 

- 

In  2016,  Portugal  adopted  ‘Fostering  Scientific  Employment’  (Decree-Law 
57/2016), with the aim of improving researchers' working conditions and career 
prospects  and  to  promote  the  employment  of  PhD  holders  (EC,  2017c;  OECD, 
2016). The measure was taken to overcome challenges associated with a high 
emigration rate among graduates, as well as highly unstable research careers. 
In May 2016, the implementation of  Greece’s law on the National Strategy for 
Research, Technological Development and Innovation (ESETAK) was revised to 
enable  improvements  in  the  working  conditions  of  researchers  working  in  the 
public sector. 

- 

-  The  Academy  of  Finland  supports  early-career  researchers  by  funding 
postdoctoral research posts and Academy Projects for early-career researchers. 
In 2017, the government dedicated additional funds to the Academy of Finland 
in order to support a larger number of high-quality projects submitted by early-
career researchers and cover researchers’ salaries. 
In Spain, initiatives have been implemented for the recruitment of highly reputed 
Spanish or overseas research professors into the national science and technology 
system.  An  alternative  career  path  in  public  research  organisations  and 
universities  through  permanent  contracts  (‘for  distinguished  researchers  or 
scientists of great prestige’) has been developed. A new call for the recruitment 
of highly reputed Spanish researchers using this type of contract is ongoing (the 
‘Beatriz Galindo’ grants). 

106 

 
 
 
8.  INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY DURING PHD STAGE 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Section 7.1.1) 

107 

 
 
 
8.1.  Key findings 

The MORE studies consider two types of mobility at PhD stage: 

-  PhD degree mobility: mobility with the purpose of obtaining a PhD in a country 

other than the country of citizenship AND the country of Master’s degree. 

-  During-PhD mobility: mobility of three months or more during the PhD, while 
still obtaining the PhD in the country  in which  the researcher  began their PhD 
(regardless of the citizenship of the researcher). 

The  following  paragraphs  discuss  the  key  findings  in  MORE4  in  terms  of  the  profiles, 
motives and barriers involved in both types of PhD mobility. 

8.1.1.  Mobility profile (PhD) 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WITH INTERNATIONAL ‘PhD DEGREE MOBILITY’  

(of all R2 researchers, or R1 researchers that are enrolled in a doctoral programme) 

EU28 total 

By career stage 

By FOS 

2012 (n= 3,449) 

15.3% 

2016 (n=2,469) 

16.4% 

2019 (n=1,776) 

15.5% 

R1: 19.4% 

R2: 12.3% 

R1: 20.0% 

R2: 14.6% 

R1: 17.5 % 

R2: 14.1% 

MED: 16.4% 

NAT: 14.5% 

SOC: 15.5% 

MED: 17.1% 

NAT: 16.7% 

SOC: 15.7% 

MED: 10.9% 

NAT: 14.6% 

SOC: 19.4% 

By gender 

F:12.6% 

M:17.5% 

F:15.9% 

M:16.9% 

F:15.1% 

M:16.0% 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WITH INTERNATIONAL ‘DURING-PhD MOBILITY’  

(of all R2 researchers, or R1 researchers that are enrolled in a doctoral programme) 

EU28 total 

By career stage 

By FOS 

2012 (n=3,449) 

18.3% 

2016 (n=2,469) 

18.2% 

2019 (n=1,776) 

23.5% 

R1: 13.9% 

R2: 21.5% 

R1: 12.9% 

R2: 21.0% 

R1: 18.0% 

R2: 26.7% 

MED: 16.6% 

NAT: 16.2% 

SOC: 21.9% 

MED: 17.1% 

NAT: 16.5% 

SOC: 21.0% 

MED: 15.4% 

NAT: 21.1% 

SOC: 31.8% 

By gender 

F: 17.6% 

M: 18.9% 

F: 18.8% 

M: 17.7% 

F: 23.0% 

M: 24.0 % 

The MORE4 EU HE survey125 shows that 16% of EU PhD candidates obtain their PhD 
in  a country other than that of  which they are citizens, and 23% experiences  a 
move of more than three months to another country during their PhD. 64% of R1-
R2  researchers  have  never  been  mobile  for  or  during  the  PhD  phase  (70%  in  MORE3). 
Eurostat  data  on  the  number  of  mobile  PhD  candidates  (ISCED8)  from  another  EU28 

125 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
country as a share of total PhD candidates in the country126 were analysed in the MORE4 
Indicators report on researchers127. This indicator corresponds most closely to PhD degree 
mobility (those who are enrolled in that country to obtain their PhD), but represents only 
half  the  value  in  MORE4128:  about  8%  of  PhD  candidates  were  mobile  from  other  EU28 
countries in 2017. This share is also fairly stable over time.  

Compared  to  the  2012  and  2016  data,  PhD  degree  mobility  seems  to  have  further 
converged for male and female researchers. The difference is also very small for during-
PhD mobility. R1-R2 researchers with children engage/have engaged less in PhD degree 
mobility (13%) than those without children (18%). This difference is smaller for  during-
PhD mobility (26% with children and 24% without children). Of the researchers who are 
in couple, PhD degree mobility is substantially higher for the ones who have a partner who 
is also a researcher (23% versus 15%). This is even more outspoken in during-PhD mobility 
(43% with partner working in research versus 23% of those living in a couple but whose 
partner does not work in research). 

PhD mobility: country of origin 

Seen from the perspective of the ‘origin’ of those researchers engaged in PhD mobility, it 
is important to note that PhD degree mobility can in some cases be a (negative) indicator 
of  the  attractiveness  of  PhD  training  in  the  country  of  which  they  are  citizens.  It  can, 
however, also be a (positive) indicator of the personal willingness of citizens from a specific 
country to move abroad for their PhD (thus not necessarily implying a negative view on 
their  country  of  origin).  During-PhD  mobility  does  not  reflect  citizenship,  but  instead 
reflects the PhD training in a specific country: it shows the extent to which PhD training in 
a specific country supports/allows/requires international experiences during a PhD. 

The largest shares of PhD degree mobility are found among researchers who are citizens 
of Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Denmark (each 25% or more; see Figure 
11). This means, for example, that more than 40% of all researchers with Greek citizenship 
are mobile to obtain their PhD in a country other than Greece. This share is high when the 
number  of  mobile  researchers  represents  a  higher  proportion  of  researchers  from  that 
country; it may also be high when the total number of researchers with this citizenship is 
lower (i.e. smaller countries). Finnish, Slovenian and UK citizens are the least mobile for 
PhD degrees (less than 6%). This means that the vast majority of Finnish researchers, for 
example, obtain their PhD in Finland. Comparing figures from MORE2, MORE3 and MORE4 
reveals that while the EU average has remained relatively stable, there is a great deal of 
volatility in these figures at country level. 

For moves during PhD, the patterns between countries are somewhat more consistent 
over time (see Figure 12). Researchers who will/did obtain their PhD in Spain, Italy and 
Denmark are considerably more mobile during their PhD to another country than the EU 
average  (between  48%  and  59%,  compared  with  the  EU  average  of  23%).  This  means 

126 Based on Eurostat: mobile PhD students from abroad as a share of total PhD students in the 
country (educ_uoe_mobs02, ISCED8/educ_uoe_enrt01, ISCED8). Cf. indicator 7.1 in the MORE4 
Indicators report on researchers. 
127 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Researcher Indicators report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
128 The values of both indicators can not be directly compared because they are not based on the 
same definition. 

109 

 
                                                 
 
that most of the researchers – of any citizenship – working on a PhD in Spain, experience 
a  >3  months  mobility  experience  outside  Spain  during  their  PhD.  Hungary  also  had  a 
during-PhD mobility share of 46% in 2019, compared with 17% in 2016. For Slovenia, on 
the other hand, this share decreased from 31% in 2016 to 13% in 2019. Researchers who 
obtain(ed) their PhD in Luxembourg, Romania or Switzerland (8% or below) or in Ireland, 
the UK and the Netherlands (12-14%) engaged less frequently in during-PhD mobility. In 
some of these countries, this could be in part due to other types of mobility being more 
prevalent, such as PhD degree mobility or Master’s mobility. 

Figure 11: International PhD degree mobility, by country of citizenship 
(departure) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Share of R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders that were PhD degree mobile, by country of citizenship. 
With ‘PhD degree mobility’ defined as obtaining or having obtained a PhD in a county other than the one 
in which he/she obtained his/her previous degree.  
Countries with fewer than 30 observations are omitted: Cyprus, Iceland, Hungary, Luxembourg, Malta. 
Based on question 57: “Did/will you obtain your PhD in a country other than the one where you obtained 
your previous degree (the degree that gave access to the PhD)?” and question 5: “What is your country 
of citizenship?” 
(2019: n=1,781; 2016: 2,587) 

110 

0%20%40%60%80%100%PercentELITNLBGDKCHLTHRPTPLROEUIEESDESEFRLVSKNOATBECZEEFISIUK20192016(mean) forPHD1 
 
Figure 12: >3 month international mobility during PhD, by country of PhD 
(departure) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Share of R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders that were >3 month mobile during their PhD, by 
country of PhD. 
With ‘>3 month mobility during PhD’ defined as moving for 3 months or more to a country than the one 
in which they obtained or will obtain their PhD. 
Countries with fewer than 30 observations are omitted: Cyprus, Greece, Iceland, Malta. 
Based on question 57: “During your PhD, did you move for 3 months or more to a country other than 
the country where you did/will obtain your PhD?” 
(2019: n= 1,917; 2016: 2,764) 

111 

595348463029272726252524232322191817161515141413128830%20%40%60%80%100%PercentESITDKHUEESKPTNOATPLLTFREUFIBGHRBESECZDELVNLUKSIIECHROLU20192016(mean) q57mobility_duringPhD 
 
 
 
PhD mobility: destination country 

Seen from the perspective of the ‘destination’ of researchers engaged in PhD mobility, PhD 
degree mobility is a (positive) indicator of the attractiveness of PhD training in the country 
of destination. The more researchers of foreign citizenship work on their PhD in a specific 
country, the higher we can assume the attractiveness of that country to be, in terms of 
PhD training or other factors encouraging mobility at this career stage such as dedicated 
funding programmes. During-PhD mobility, seen from the perspective of the destination, 
reflects – among other things – the attractiveness of PhD training in a country for a shorter 
stay  (>3  months  exchange,  without  the  goal  of  obtaining  a  PhD  in  that  country).  Aside 
from the attractiveness of the research system, other framework factors will  also play a 
role, such as language patterns and selection procedures. 

As  with  country  of  ‘origin’,  the  figures  for  PhD  degree  mobility  at  country  level  vary 
considerably  over  time.  In  MORE4,  we  see  high  shares  of  PhD  degree  mobility  towards 
Hungary,  Luxemburg  and  Ireland,  but  also  towards  Scandinavian  countries  such  as 
Norway, Denmark and Sweden. This is shown in Figure 13 below. Share may be high either 
due  to  a  higher  number  of  foreign  researchers  in  a  country,  or  due  to  the  lower  total 
number of researchers in these countries.  

Eurostat also provides information about the destination of PhD mobility in its monitoring 
of mobile PhD candidates (ISCED8) from abroad, as a share of total PhD candidates in the 
country129. The countries with the most PhD candidates from abroad relative to their total 
number of PhD candidates are Luxembourg (54%), Austria (19%), Denmark (18%) and 
the  Netherlands  (17%).  Corresponding  shares  for  this  indicator  in  Croatia,  Lithuania, 
Poland, Romania and Slovenia range between 0% and 1%. 

For during-PhD mobility, the main destination countries are the United States (13%), 
Germany  (12%)  and  the  United  Kingdom  (10%),  as  shown  in  Table  3.  In  MORE3  and 
MORE2,  these  countries  were  also  among  the  top  3,  but  in  a  different  order  (Germany 
surpassed the United Kingdom in the most recent MORE survey). The top 10 destination 
countries  for  during-PhD  mobility  are  often  visited  by  R1  and  R2  researchers  from  the 
largest  mainland  EU-countries  (Germany,  Italy,  and  Spain).  In  MORE3,  this  list  was 
dominated by Southern European countries (Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal). 

The geographical patterns of >3 month during-PhD mobility are very similar to those for 
post-PhD mobility, and appear to be stable over time when compared with the figures for 
2012 and 2016 (i.e. MORE2 and MORE3): the United States, United Kingdom and Germany 
are the most frequently mentioned destinations for researchers before and after their PhD. 
In addition, the MORE surveys also collect information on Master’s mobility: in MORE3, the 
rate  of  during-PhD  mobility  observed  was  considerably  higher  among  researchers  who 
were not mobile for their PhD degree, because they already moved during their Master’s 
degree (37% versus 18% in total). In MORE4, however, these percentages are no longer 
significantly different from each other (23% versus 24% in total). 

129 Based on Eurostat: Mobile PhD students from abroad as a share of total PhD students in the 
country (educ_uoe_mobs02, ISCED8; /educ_uoe_enrt0, ISCED8). Cf. indicator 7.1 in the MORE3 
Indicators report on researchers. 

112 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 13: International PhD degree mobility, by country of PhD (destination) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Share of R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders that were PhD degree mobile, by country of PhD.  
With ‘PhD degree mobility’ defined as obtaining or having obtained a PhD in county other than the one in 
which he/she obtained his/her previous degree. 
Countries with fewer than 30 observation are omitted: Cyprus, Iceland, Greece, Malta 
Based on question 55: “Did/will you obtain your PhD in a country other than the one where you obtained 
your previous degree (the degree that gave access to the PhD)?” 
(2019: n=1,881; 2016: 2,716) 

Table 3: Main destination countries for >3 month mobility during PhD (EU28 
departing countries) 

DESTINATION  SHARE (%)  CUMULATIVE 

ORIGIN 1 

ORIGIN 2 

ORIGIN 3 

SHARE (%) 

(CITIZENSHIP) 

(CITIZENSHIP) 

(CITIZENSHIP) 

United States 

12.7% 

12.7% 

Italy (11.6%) 

Denmark 
(11.6%) 

Germany 
(11.6%) 

Germany 

12.2% 

24.9% 

Spain (9.4%) 

Slovenia (9.4%) 

Austria/Bulgaria
(6.3%) 

10.2% 

35.1% 

Spain (11.5%) 

Italy (9.6%) 

Denmark (9.6%) 

7.3% 

42.4% 

Spain (16.2%) 

Italy (13.5%) 

Romania/Portugal
(10.8%) 

United 
Kingdom 

France 

Spain 

Italy 

4.5% 

3.9% 

46.9% 

50.8% 

Sweden 

3.5% 

54.3% 

Belgium 

3.5% 

57.8% 

Austria 

3.3% 

61.2% 

Portugal (16%) 

Bulgaria (12%) 

Slovenia (12%) 

Germany 
(13.6%) 

Germany 
(16.7%) 

Germany 
(11.1%) 

Slovenia 
(17.6%) 

Lithuania 
(13.6%) 

Italy (16.7%) 

France (9.1%) 

Denmark, 
Lithuania,  

Sweden (11.1%) 

France (11.1%) 

Denmark 
(11.1%) 

Belgium, 
Slovakia 
(11.8%) 

113 

0%20%40%60%80%100%PercentHULUIENODKCHSENLEEFRITLVESBEEUATUKDEBGHRFICZPLSKLTSIPTRO20192016(mean) forPHD1 
 
 
 
 
 
DESTINATION  SHARE (%)  CUMULATIVE 

ORIGIN 1 

ORIGIN 2 

ORIGIN 3 

SHARE (%) 

(CITIZENSHIP) 

(CITIZENSHIP) 

(CITIZENSHIP) 

Denmark 

2.7% 

63.9% 

Spain (14.3%) 

Finland, 
Portugal, 
Slovenia, and 
others (7.1%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Reading note: Of the total number of researchers currently working in the EU but who were mobile for more 
than three months during their PhD to the United States, equal shares of 11.6% were Italian, Danish and 
Spanish. 
Notes:  

Share of R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders currently working in the EU which were mobile for more 
than three months during their PhD to a specific destination country. 
Destination countries with fewer than 14 observations are not included in the table (Denmark has 14 
observations). 
Based on question 58: “To which country(ies) was this?” 
(n=510) 

8.1.2.  Motives and barriers (PhD) 

Why move? Motives for PhD mobility 

Both for PhD degree mobility and during-PhD mobility, we find a relatively stable ranking 
of motives over time. The ranking is also similar for both types of PhD mobility: both rank 
international networking and working with leading scientists very highly. Quality 
of  education  and  training  and  research  autonomy  are  also  important  for  both. 
Unsurprisingly, the availability of research funding and suitable positions is more important 
for  PhD  degree  mobility,  while  career  progression  and  access  to  research  facilities  and 
equipment are more important reasons for during-PhD mobility. 

The  least  important  motives  with  regard  to  both  types  of  PhD  mobility  are  ameliorating 
one’s pension plan, social security and other benefits, as well as personal or family reasons 
and  improved  remuneration  and  job  security.  Motives  for  moving  are  hence  related  to 
improving one’s conditions for research, rather than improving ‘material’ conditions. This 
is in line with the findings on career paths and working conditions in Sections 6 and 7. 

Overall,  the  motives  for  PhD  mobility  tend  to  focus  more  on  the  availability  of  research 
funding and positions, while those for post-PhD mobility tend to focus more on research 
autonomy and aspects relating to international networking (cf. Section 9). 

Table 4: Importance of motives for international PhD degree mobility (EU28) 

SHARE  OF  RESPONDENTS  INDICATING  THIS  MOTIVE  AS  ONE  OF  THEIR  MOTIVES  FOR 
INTERNATIONAL PhD DEGREE MOBILITY  

(Of all R2 researchers, or R1 researchers who are enrolled in a doctoral programme and were PhD 
degree mobile) 

Availability of research funding 

Availability of suitable PhD positions 

International networking 

Working with leading scientists 

Research autonomy 

Quality of training and education 

Career progression 

Access to research facilities and 
equipment 

2012 (n=653) 

72.6% 

83.9% 

/ 

73.2% 

64.6% 

76.4% 

74.5% 

69.5% 

2016 
(n=491) 
79.2% 

84.5% 

81.8% 

87.8% 

77.9% 

86.9% 

84.5% 

79.0% 

2019 (n=305) 

80.2% 

78.3% 

74.8% 

74.3% 

73.3% 

71.1% 

68.0% 

65.7% 

114 

 
 
 
Remuneration  

Balance between teaching and 
research time 

Social security and other benefits 

Culture and/or language 

Job security 

Personal/family reasons 

Pension plan 

Working conditions 

50.8% 

/ 

35.3% 

58.9% 

44.5% 

31.5% 

(together with social 
security benefits in 2012 
survey) 
62.6% 

70.9% 

64.7% 

63.6% 

62.5% 

62.1% 

60.3% 

49.2% 

57.1% 

55.5% 

51.1% 

50.1% 

48.4% 

48.3% 

38.5% 

/ 

/ 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Notes:  

With ‘PhD degree mobility’ defined as obtaining or having obtained a PhD in another county than the one 
where one obtained his/her previous degree. 
Only includes researchers who will obtain or have obtained a PhD in an EU country. 
Based on question 56:” Which of the following factors were important in your decision to obtain your 
PhD in another country?” The answer options between MORE2 and MORE3 differ slightly. 

Table 5: Importance of motives for >3 month mobility during PhD (EU28) 

SHARE OF RESPONDENTS WHO INDICATE THIS MOTIVE AS ONE OF THEIR MOTIVES FOR 
INTERNATIONAL DURING-PhD MOBILITY (>3 MONTHS) 

(Of all R2 researchers, or R1 researchers that are enrolled in a doctoral programme and 
experienced >3 month mobile during their PhD) 

2012 (n=552) 

2016 (n=420)  2019 (n=333) 

International networking 

Working with leading scientists 

Career progression 

Quality of training and education 

Access to research facilities and 
equipment 

Research autonomy 

Culture and/or language 

Availability of research funding 

Availability of suitable PhD positions 

Balance between teaching and 
research time 

Remuneration 

Personal/family reasons 

Job security 

Social security and other benefits 

Pension plan 

/ 

82.1% 

83.3% 

62.4% 

78.3% 

75.0% 

68.2% 

63% 

41.6% 

/ 

26.2% 

52.3% 

22.6% 

13.2% 

(together with social 
security benefits in 2012 
survey) 

86.1% 

88.5% 

70.6% 

71.0% 

74.7% 

75.4% 

68.2% 

67.3% 

56.7% 

47% 

34.1% 

29.8% 

22.7% 

19.7% 

12.2% 

92.0% 

89.5% 

86.4% 

83.9% 

80.7% 

79.8% 

74.6% 

72.8% 

58.6% 

56.0% 

53.7% 

52.1% 

46.4% 

46.4% 

40.3% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012). 
Notes:  

With ‘>3 month mobility during PhD’ defined as moving for 3 months or more to a country other than 
the country in which he/she did or will obtain their PhD. 
Based on question 59: ”Which of the following factors were important in your decision to move to 
another country?” The answer options between MORE2 and MORE3 differ slightly. 

115 

 
 
 
 
Why not move? Barriers to PhD mobility 

The barriers to PhD mobility, as perceived by non-mobile researchers, are also stable over 
time and comparable to post-PhD mobility barriers.  They  emphasise  personal or family-
related reasons (78%); the ability to obtain funding for mobility (60%) or research (58%); 
logistics (54%); and finding a suitable position (53%). In 2016 and 2012, the ranking of 
the main barriers was very similar, but the shares have increased for all items since then – 
especially personal and family reasons, which have experienced an increase of 20pp over 
time, confirming the key role played by such factors in mobility decisions. In addition, the 
logistical aspects of moving have become a more important barrier for PhD mobility (54%), 
compared  with  2016  (29%).  Overall,  dimensions  such  as  culture  or  obtaining  a  visa  or 
work  permit,  as  well  as  the  language  of  the  PhD  programme  and  of  teaching  are  less 
important barriers for PhD mobility (from 16% up to 27%).  

The ranking of the barriers to mobility that are mentioned more frequently by non-mobile 
researchers is the same among R1 and R2 researchers, and the differences between these 
two  groups  tend  to  be  limited.  Compared  with  R2  researchers,  more  R1  researchers 
indicate  that  they  face  the  following  barriers:  the  language  of  the  PhD  programme  (a 
difference of 12pp); culture (10pp); and obtaining a visa or work permit (9pp). Conversely, 
more R2 researchers report other types of barriers, such as finding a suitable position (a 
difference of 12pp) or logistics (11pp).   

In 2016,  female  researchers tended to indicate more barriers as reasons  for not having 
been mobile. In 2019, we observe some convergence between genders, with some barriers 
being mentioned more often by men than women. Personal and family reasons and logistics 
are  still  more  important  barriers  to  female  researchers  (differences  of  8pp  and  13pp, 
respectively), while access to research facilities and equipment for research, transferring 
social security entitlements, and culture, are more important barriers for male researchers 
(differences of between 14pp and 17pp). 

Table 6: Importance of barriers for PhD mobility among the non-mobile (EU28) 

AVERAGE SHARE OF RESPONDENTS THAT INDICATE THIS BARRIER AS ONE OF THE FACTORS 
KEEPING THEM FROM INTERNATIONAL PhD MOBILITY 

(OF ALL NON-MOBILE R2 RESEARCHERS, OR NON-MOBILE R1 RESEARCHERS THAT ARE ENROLLED 
IN A DOCTORAL PROGRAMME) 

2012 (n=825) 

2016 (n=595)  2019 (n=401) 

Other personal/family reason 

54.0% 

Obtaining funding for mobility 

Obtaining funding for research 

Logistics 

Finding a suitable position 

Maintaining level of 
remuneration 

Transferring social security 
entitlements 

Transferring research funding 
to another country 

Loss of contact with 
professional network 

Quality of training and 
education 

Language of teaching 

(together with funding for 
research in 2012 survey) 

63.8% 

44.0% 

54.5% 

NA 

NA 

34.0% 

25.8% 

25.5% 

(together with culture and 
language for PhD programme in 
2012 survey) 

58.0% 

44.1% 

43.5% 

28.8% 

41.9% 

21.6% 

77.6% 

60.4% 

58.3% 

54.5% 

52.8% 

46.5% 

12.9% 

35.0% 

14.6% 

34.7% 

22.0% 

34.0% 

10.1% 

29.3% 

12.8% 

27.2% 

116 

 
  
AVERAGE SHARE OF RESPONDENTS THAT INDICATE THIS BARRIER AS ONE OF THE FACTORS 
KEEPING THEM FROM INTERNATIONAL PhD MOBILITY 

(OF ALL NON-MOBILE R2 RESEARCHERS, OR NON-MOBILE R1 RESEARCHERS THAT ARE ENROLLED 
IN A DOCTORAL PROGRAMME) 

Access to research facilities and 
equipment for research 

Language for PhD programme 

Obtaining a visa or work permit 

25.7% 

22.1% 

NA 

Culture 

(together with language for 
teaching and language for PhD 
programme in 2012 survey) 

15.4% 

10.3% 

6.0% 

26.5% 

22.4% 

21.1% 

4.1% 

15.8% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016), and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Notes: 

Share of non-mobile R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders with some consideration of PhD mobility, 
who indicate the barrier as important for non-PhD mobility. 
With ‘non-PhD mobile’ defined as never having been PhD degree mobile, nor mobile during their PhD. 
With ‘some consideration of PhD mobility’ defined as not having indicated that they have never 
considered mobility (thus having considered it but made no effort; having considered it and searched; 
and having turned down a concrete offer). 
Based on question 61: “Which of the following factors prevented you from taking part or all of your PhD 
in another country”? The answer options in MORE2 where slightly different compared to MORE3 and 
MORE4. 

8.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

A strong ERA will be built on strong researchers. In this context, it is important to offer 
attractive  career  prospects  to  young  researchers.  One  aspect  of  this 
is  the 
internationalisation of PhD training, and thus mobility. To this end, open recruitment and 
mobility support measures are essential.  

Mobility  opportunities  are  not  only  a  factor  in  the  attractiveness  of  PhD  training,  but 
international mobility at PhD stage is also considered an important asset for a researcher’s 
further  career:  Section  6  documents  the  positive  role  of  international  mobility  in 
recruitment  and  career  progression.  International  mobility  also  enables  international 
collaboration,  which  is  often  a  key  ingredient  of  scientific  productivity  and  research 
performance130. Several studies on the effects of mobility among students and staff show 
that experiences abroad enrich a person’s professional and academic life while at the same 
time enhancing personal skills such as language learning, intercultural skills, self-reliance 
and self-awareness131.  

The Innovative Doctoral Training Principles132 (see also Section 5 on PhD training) provide 
a coordinated framework to achieve excellent doctoral training. One important principle is 

130 Jonkers, K. & Tijssen, R. (2008). Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international 
mobility on research collaboration and scientific productivity. Scientometrics, 77(2), 309-333. 
131 Among others: EURODATA Student Mobility in European Higher Education (Kelo, Teichler and 
Wächter 2006), the Erasmus statistics (European Commission 2012a), the Flash Eurobarometers 
(Gallup Organization 2010; Gallup Organization 2011) and the EU-funded study Mapping Mobility in 
European Higher Education (Teichler, Ferencz and Wächter 2011a; Teichler, Ferencz and Wächter 
2011b), as cited in The Erasmus Impact Study, Effects of mobility on the skills and employability of 
students and the internationalisation of higher education institutions (2014). CHE Consult et al. 
ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/education/library/study/2014/erasmus-
impact_en.pdf 
132 Report of Mapping Exercise on Doctoral Training in Europe "Towards a common approach" of 27 
June 2011(final), adopted by the ERA Steering Group on Human Resources and Mobility. 

117 

 
                                                 
 
that of international networking, according to which “mobility should be encouraged, be it 
through conferences, short research visits and secondments or longer stays abroad”. The 
ERA  Steering  Group  on  Human  Resources  and  Mobility133  states  that  international 
networking, exposure to industry, interdisciplinary research options and transferable skills 
are seen as important principles influencing the success of doctoral training and the future 
career of doctoral candidates. Building on the Bratislava Declaration of Young Researchers, 
as well as the Council Conclusions on 'Measures to support early-stage researchers, raise 
the attractiveness of scientific careers and foster investment in human potential in research 
and development'134, stress the importance of supporting international mobility for young 
researchers because it contributes to European added value in research excellence.  

The main policy goals for PhD mobility can thus be identified as: 

-  Quantity  of  researchers  trained  at  PhD  level:  PhD  studies  need  to  be 
attractive  to  draw  in  growing  numbers  of  talented  students,  and  options  for 
international mobility represent one aspect of this. 

-  Quality of PhD training: PhD candidates will be drawn to the most attractive 
training and research environments. Mobility thus encourages increased levels 
and quality of training. In addition, it results in more international collaboration 
afterwards  (see  Section  10).  These  are  two  aspects  with  a  direct  positive 
influence  on  scientific  productivity  and  future  careers.  This  also  relates  to  the 
point  made  in  Section  5,  that  PhD  training  programmes  in  the  EU  must  be 
attractive enough to entice the best within the context of worldwide competition 
for the most talented researchers135, ensuring brain circulation rather than brain 
drain. 

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
PhD mobility? 

The mobility patterns of early-stage researchers have remained stable over time (2012-
2019), both in terms of numbers and flows (destinations and origins). At the same time, 
the figures for  PhD mobility flows reflect  differences between  countries in terms of  both 
mobility rates and the relative attractiveness of PhD training across Europe. Mobility rates 
are high in Southern European countries, and  in a number of small and open countries. 
Comparing MORE2, MORE3 and MORE4 reveals that while the EU average has remained 
relatively stable, there has been a great deal of volatility in these figures at country level. 

Young researchers are driven by factors relating to scientific knowledge production such 
as  working  with  leading  scientists,  international  networking,  quality  of  training  and 
education,  and  career  progression.  This  corresponds  with  the  general  view  that 

133 Report of the ERA Steering Group Human Resources and Mobility (ERA SGHRM): Using the 
Principles for Innovative Doctoral Training as a Tool for Guiding Reforms of Doctoral Education in 
Europe. 
134 Council of the European Union (2016). Draft Council conclusions on 'Measures to support early-
stage researchers, raise the attractiveness of scientific careers and foster investment in human 
potential in research and development'. Retrieved from 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24214/st14301en16.pdf  
135 Hunter, R.S., Oswald, A.J. & Bruce. Charlton, B.G. (2009). ‘The Elite Brain Drain*’. The 
Economic Journal 119, no. 538: F231–F251. 

118 

 
                                                 
 
international PhD mobility is expected to have a positive impact on academic life and skills. 
Researchers are, however, held back by more practical issues such as personal or family 
reasons, or by a lack of funding or suitable positions. This is consistent with the previous 
literature, which sees motivations relating to boosting one’s career as crucial for moving 
somewhere else, while personal or family reasons hold researchers back or lead to return 
mobility136.  This  implies  that  fostering  international  PhD  mobility  is  related  to  two  main 
dimensions:  first,  increasing  the  attractiveness  or  quality  of  PhD  studies  in  general  (i.e. 
working on the drivers of PhD mobility outlined in Section 5); and second, reducing barriers 
to mobility at PhD stage. There is an opportunity to work on these practical issues in order 
to broaden the group of researchers who are enabled or convinced to become mobile for 
or during their PhD.  

EU-level and national policy instruments 

It is clear that the positive factors identified as drivers for PhD mobility in the MORE studies 
are related to scientific productivity and training. Fostering international mobility will thus 
be facilitated by a consistent effort to build high-quality research systems and PhD 
training across Europe. In Section 5, we noted that the attractiveness of PhD training in 
general could be further improved by reforms aimed at more structured training. In this 
context,  it  is  important  that  reforms  should  take  into  account  differences  between  EU 
countries  in  order  to  achieve  high-quality  PhD  training  in  all  Member  States  –  thus 
encouraging  brain  circulation,  rather  than  brain  drain.  To  enhance  mobility,  universities 
suggest  increasing  the  opportunities  for  international  tenure-track  or  tenured  positions 
after graduating137.  

As we concluded in Section 5, an increase in the resources for MSCA co-funding and ESIF 
projects  could  further  support  the  necessary  reforms,  particularly  in  those  countries 
currently experiencing the highest outflow of PhD candidates.  

Furthermore,  existing  HR  frameworks  and  tools  (e.g.  the  Innovative  Doctoral  Training 
principles  [IDT],  European  Charter  for  Researchers  and  Code  of  Conduct  for  their 
Recruitment [‘Charter and Code’], the European Framework for Research Careers [EFRC], 
and the Human Resource Strategy for Researchers [HRS4R]), are available to the Member 
States  and  research  organisations  as  guidance  for  further  reforms  towards  structured 
training.  These  tools  will  be  revised  and  optimised  under  the  impetus  of  the  new  ERA 
Communication  (2020).  The  Communication  emphasises  the  need 
for  a  more 
comprehensive approach: its aim is to build a toolbox by the end of 2024 to support the 
creation of a pipeline for talent by tackling the recognition of researchers’ skills, enhanced 
mobility and exchanges between academia and industry, targeted training opportunities, 
and a ‘one-stop shop’ portal at which researchers can access a range of support services.  

In  addition  to  improving  the  quality  and  attractiveness  of  PhD  studies  in  general, 
encouraging  and  supporting  international  mobility  in  itself  is  also  important  in 
stimulating the better circulation of ideas and beneficial effects for the individual careers 

136 Franzoni, C., Scellato, G. & Stephan, P. (2012). Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 
countries. Nature Biotechnology, 30(12), 1250-1253. 
137 CESAER, CLUSTER, EuroTech Universities Alliance, IDEA League and Nordic Five Tech (2015) 
Innovative doctoral training at universities of science and technology. Discussion Paper. 

119 

 
                                                 
 
of the researchers. The latter are particularly important during the early career stages. To 
this end, two needs are identified: stronger funding opportunities for research and mobility, 
and  the  reduction  of  barriers  –  particularly  those  relating  to  the  family  situation  of  the 
researcher. Also, the Bratislava Declaration of Young Researchers (2016)138 expressed the 
need (among others) to reorganise funding streams to place trust in and empower young 
researchers, and to implement better and more supportive childcare provision and parental 
care, as well as flexible working practices and dual-career opportunities. 

In terms of funding for mobility, the MSCA generally plays a prominent role in stimulating 
mobility, and more generally in stimulating excellent and innovative research training (e.g. 
via  the  Innovative  Training  Networks  [ITNs]).  Furthermore,  in  the  ERA  process,  open 
recruitment  is  stressed  as  an  enabling  factor  for  mobility.  Access  by  non-nationals  to 
national  grants  and  the  portability  of  grants  are  mentioned  as  facilitators  of  mobility. 
Advertising vacancies on the EURAXESS jobs portal and via the European Framework for 
Research  Careers  (EFRC)139  is  also  encouraged,  in  order  to  reduce  the  barriers  to  non-
national researchers in terms of finding suitable positions. EURAXESS services also play a 
key role in assisting researchers and their families with relocation issues. The EFRC further 
increases transparency and supports more comparable research career structures across 
sectors  and  countries.  Due  to  a  changing  labour  market  and  economy,  the  new  ERA 
Communication140 and Skills Agenda141 both emphasise the need to update the EFRC and 
develop a taxonomy of researchers’ skills. This will not only support the comparability of 
research  careers,  but  also  the  modernisation  of  reward  systems  and  the  monitoring  of 
trends in the research labour market, as well as careers, skills and talent. This common 
understanding  on  early-stage  researchers  thus  further  supports  open  recruitment  and 
mobility options.  

Most of these instruments, however,  work on  mobility and open  recruitment in general, 
rather than to specifically benefit young researchers during their PhD research. While the 
drivers of mobility for this group are generally the same as those for post-PhD researchers, 
they are at the same time more focused on their training and on the availability of funding 
and positions. In this respect, actions could focus more  specifically on the needs of this 
subgroup.  

To  support  young  researchers,  Members  States  are  also  called  upon  to  facilitate  and 
promote  the  participation  of  early-stage  researchers  in  bilateral  and  multilateral  S&T 
cooperation  schemes  and  projects,  to  support  the  voluntary  return  of  early-stage 
researchers to pursue scientific careers in their countries of origin, thus facilitating inter-
institutional networking throughout Europe and international scientific cooperation, while 
encouraging  mobility  throughout  their  careers.  Member  States  are  also  encouraged  to 
consider  establishing  measures  such  as  a  prize  to  recognise  excellent  early-stage 

138 Bratislava Declaration of Young Researchers (2020). Retrieved from 
http://declaration.mimuw.edu.pl/ 
139 Towards a European Framework for Research Careers (2011), European Commission, 
Directorate General for Research and Innovation, Directorate B – European Research Area, Skills. 
140 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 
141 European Commission (2020). Communication. European Skills Agenda for sustainable 
competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. 

120 

 
                                                 
 
researchers, with the aim of supporting their independent research, mobility, networking, 
and entrepreneurial skills142. 

According  to  the  Final  Report  on  Monitoring  ERA  Priorities  with  ERA  Roadmap  National 
Actions Plans (NAPs) published by ERAC143, 36% of actions included in NAPs for Priority 3 
(Open  labour  market  for  researchers)  are  reported  as  completed  (see  Table  7),  while 
another  46%  of  ongoing  actions  have  made  significant  progress  (degree  of  execution 
greater than or equal to 50%). Completed activities include the establishment of funding 
programmes (many aimed at integrating research staff into the private sector, either to do 
PhDs  or  through  temporary  schemes  such  as  internships);  the  publication  of 
policies/strategies/frameworks;  as  well  as  specific  campaigns,  mostly  to  promote  EU 
initiatives such as the Charter and Code, HRS4R, EURAXESS Jobs, RESAVER, MSCA, etc. 

Table 7: Distribution of actions by type and current status in Priority 3 

TYPE OF ACTION 

% OF 

TOTAL 

ACTIONS 

STATUS 

COMPLETED  (≥ 50%)  (< 50%)  CANCELLED 

TOTAL 

Remove legal and 

53% 

33% 

53% 

11% 

3% 

100% 

other barriers 

Support EURAXESS 

Support innovative 

doctoral training 

12% 

24% 

47% 

47% 

6% 

0% 

100% 

42% 

30% 

27% 

0% 

100% 

Adopt the 

9% 

17% 

50% 

33% 

0% 

100% 

Charter and Code 

principles and 

implement the HRS4R 

Other types of action 

3% 

50% 

25% 

25% 

0% 

100% 

TOTAL 

100% 

36% 

46% 

17% 

1% 

100% 

Source: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1209-2020-INIT/en/pdf  

Some examples of new instruments and developments at national level that contribute to 
international mobility at PhD stage can be drawn from the country snapshots in the ERA 
Progress  Report  2018.  As  part  of  their  NAPs,  ERA  countries  are  reforming  their  R&I 
systems;  updating  legal  and  administrative  frameworks  at  national,  regional  and 
organisational  levels;  implementing  organisational  reforms;  introducing  new  schemes 
and/or enhancing their existing programmes to support international PhD mobility. Without 
aiming to be exhaustive, and without any further information on the effectiveness of these 

142 Council conclusions on 'Measures to support early stage researchers, raise the attractiveness of 
scientific careers and foster investment in human potential in research and development' (2016). 
143 European Research Area and Innovation Committee (2020). Final Report on Monitoring ERA 
Priorities with ERA Roadmap National Action Plans. Retrieved from 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-1209-2020-INIT/en/pdf 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
measures, we list below some examples of such new initiatives and developments across 
different Member States with varying levels of international PhD mobility: 

- 

- 

In 2016, Ireland launched its National Skills Strategy 2025144. This emphasises 
the implementation of the National Framework for Doctoral Education145 adopted 
in 2015, and links it to Ireland’s strategy for research and development, science 
and technology – Innovation 2020146 – and the International Education Strategy 
for  Ireland  2016-2020147.  The  strategy  notes  the  need  for  a  solid  pipeline  of 
research  skills  development  that  supports  early-stage  researchers,  researcher 
mobility into industry and internationally, as well as the development, retention 
and attraction of advanced researchers.148 
In  2017,  the Finnish  Research  and  Innovation  Council  adopted  its  vision  and 
roadmap  for  2030,  with  the  aim  of making  Finland  the  most  attractive  and 
competent  environment  for  experimentation  and  innovation.  Among  other 
things,  according  to  this  roadmap,  a  period  of  international  mobility  is  to  be 
included in all higher education degrees.149 

-  The  Swedish  government  also  plans  to  redefine  the  way 

in  which 
internationalisation  is  described  in  the  Higher  Education  Act,  and  to  prepare  a 
new strategy to be implemented between 2020 and 2030.150 The development 
will be inspired by a new Strategic Agenda for the Internationalisation of Swedish 
Higher Education and Research, developed in 2018.151 
In Slovenia, the internationalisation of higher education has been guided by the 
Strategy  for  the  Internationalisation  of  Slovenian  Higher  Education  2016–
2020152,  and  two  respective  Action  Plans  adopted  by  the  government  of  the 

- 

144 Department of Education and Skills (n.d.). Ireland’s National Skills Strategy 2025. Retrieved 
from 
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/pub_national_skills_strategy_2025.pdf  
145 Higher Education Authority (n.d.). National Framework for Doctoral Education. Retrieved from 
https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/04/national_framework_for_doctoral_education_0.pdf  
146 Irish Government (2019). Innovation 2020. Excellence Talent Impact. Retrieved from 
https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/Publications/Publication-files/Innovation-2020.pdf  
147 Irish Government (2016). Irish Educated Globally Connected. An International Education 
Strategy for Ireland. Retrieved from 
https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/International-Education-Strategy-For-
Ireland-2016-2020.pdf  
148 European Commission (2018). European Research Area. Progress Report 2018. Country Profile 
Ireland. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/research_and_innovation/era/era-
2018_country_profile_ie.pdf  
149 Finish Ministry of Education (2020). Solutions for a sustainable and developing society. 
Retrieved from 
https://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/22508665/The+National+Roadmap+for+Research%2C+De
velopment+and+Innovation/e9566011-2acc-35b2-7b45-
279387991430/The+National+Roadmap+for+Research%2C+Development+and+Innovation.pdf  
150 European Commission (2020). National Reforms in Higher Education. Retrieved from 
https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/national-reforms-higher-education-
71_en  
151 Swedish Government (2018). Internationalisation of Swedish Higher Education and Research – 
A Strategic Agenda. Retrieved from 
https://www.government.se/48fc30/contentassets/4df6aeabd2bd4f5dbbf69210f786e133/internatio
nalisationagenda.pdf  
152 Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training 
Programmes and the Ministry of the Republic of Slovenia for Education, Science and Sport (2016). 

122 

 
                                                 
 
Republic  of  Slovenia  for  the  periods  2016-2018  and  2018-2020.  The  strategy 
regards  international  mobility  as  a  means  to  open  up  the  Slovenian  higher 
education  community  and  ensure  the  quality  of  scientific  research  and 
development.153 

-  Similarly, the Czech Republic has adopted a Strategy for the Internationalisation 
of Higher Education for the Period from 2021. The priorities of this strategy are 
as follows: i) developing competences directly relevant to life and practice in the 
21st century among HE students and staff; ii) the internationalisation of HE study 
programmes; iii) Simplifying the process for recognising education from abroad; 
iv)  creating  an  international  environment  at  HEIs  and  promotion  abroad;  v) 
strengthening  the  strategic  management  of  internationalisation;  and  vi) 
Internationalisation activities of the national accreditation bureau.154 
In 2017, Poland established a National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA). 
The  agency  offers  both  broader  and  narrow  (sectoral)  opportunities  for 
international mobility at PhD stage: 

- 

o  The  Iwanowska  Programme155  allows  visits  whose  aim  is  to  implement 
part of a doctoral degree programme (including part of an ‘industrial PhD’ 
programme);  to  conduct  research  or  obtain  material  related  for  the 
preparation  of  a  doctoral  thesis;  to  carry  out  teaching  activities  at  the 
host  centre  as  a  complement  to  the  aforementioned  objectives,  etc. 
Mobilities under the programme may last between three and 12 months. 
The programme provides funding for the scholarships, which covers the 
scholarship holder's expenses related to his/her stay in a foreign hosting 
institution and the mobility allowance;  

o  The  Walczak  Programme156,  meanwhile,  supports  international  mobility 
of  researchers  in  the  fields  of  cardiology,  oncology,  allergology  and 
infectious  diseases.  Doctoral  students  and  persons  working  on  their 
doctoral  dissertation  are  offered  visits  lasting  between  three  and  6 
months, with destinations being the best medical institutions located in 
the United States. The programme provides funding for the scholarships, 
which covers the scholarship holder’s living allowance  for the scientist's 
stay in a foreign host institution, and a one-off mobility allowance. 

Strategy for the internationalisation of Slovenian Higher Education 2016-2020. Retrieved from 
https://eng.cmepius.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Strategija-internacionalizacije-slovenskega-
visokega-solstva_ENG_2016%E2%80%932020_WEB.pdf  
153 Centre of the Republic of Slovenia for Mobility and European Educational and Training 
Programmes and the Ministry of the Republic of Slovenia for Education, Science and Sport (2016). 
Action plan strategy for the internationalisation of Slovenian Higher Education 2016-2018. 
Collected objectives, measures, indicators, responsibilities with a time plan. Retrieved from 
https://eng.cmepius.si/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Akcijski-nacrt-2016-2018_ANG-WEB.pdf  
154 European Commission. Czech Republic. National Reforms in Higher Education. Retrieved from 
https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/national-reforms-higher-education-
17_en 
155 Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (2020). The Iwanowska Programme. Retrieved 
from 
https://nawa.gov.pl/en/scientists/the-iwanowska-programme  
156 Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (2019). Call for proposals. Retrieved from 
https://nawa.gov.pl/en/scientists/the-walczak-programme/call-for-proposals  

123 

 
                                                 
 
-  The Research Council of Norway offers Overseas Research Grants157;158 enabling 
researchers, including doctoral and post-doctoral research fellows, to conduct a 
research  stay  in  another  country.  Funding  for  research  stays  abroad  can  be 
allocated  as  part  of  a  larger  Research  Council-funded  project,  such  as  a 
Researcher Project, or in connection with specific funding schemes for research 
stays in other countries. Funding is ordinarily only provided for research stays 
abroad that last between three and 12 months. 

-  The Dutch Research Council (NWO) is implementing the Rubicon scheme159 as 
part  of  its  broader  Talent  Programme.  The  latter  consists  of  three  funding 
instruments (Veni, Vidi, Vici) tailored to various phases in researchers’ scientific 
careers. Rubicon is open to postgraduates who are currently engaged in doctoral 
research, or who have been awarded a doctorate during the 12 months preceding 
the  relevant  deadline  for  applications.  The  scheme  is  open  to  all  scientific 
disciplines for a research project at an excellent research institution outside the 
Netherlands for a period of 12-24 months. 

All of these developments – especially those national policies aimed at tackling funding for 
internationalisation issues and the activities of national agencies, as identified by the EAIE 
Barometer160 (see Figure 14) – are of utmost importance to the further internationalisation 
of higher education. It is safe to conclude that they also have a strong positive impact on 
international  mobility  at  PhD  stage,  as  the  ability  to  obtain  funding  is  among  the  key 
barriers to such mobility identified in our research. 

157 The Research Council of Norway (2020). Research Stays Abroad. Retrieved from 
https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/apply-for-funding/funding-from-the-research-council/Personal-
Overseas-Research-Grants/  
158 The Research Council of Norway (2019). Funding for Research Stays Abroad for Doctoral and 
Postdoctoral Fellows. Retrieved from 
https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/call-for-proposals/2019/personal-overseas-research-grant-for-
doctoral-and-post-doctoral-fellows/  
159 Dutch Research Council (2020). Rubicon. Retrieved from https://www.nwo.nl/en/calls/rubicon-
enw-2020-2-enw  
160 The data in this survey are based on a 2017 survey completed by 2,317 respondents from 
1,292 unique institutions in 45 countries across the European Higher Education Area. 

124 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 14: Impact of national policies on internationalisation at higher education 
institutions 

Source: EAIE Barometer (second edition). 

https://www.eaie.org/our-resources/library/publication/Research-and-trends/eaie-barometer-second-

edition.html 

125 

 
 
9.  INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY AFTER PHD STAGE 

Source: Based on MORE3 EU HE report (Section 8.1.1.1). 

126 

 
 
9.1.  Key findings 

9.1.1.  Mobility profile  

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WITH >3 MONTH INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY EXPERIENCE DURING 
THE LAST 10 YEARS 

(Of all R2, R3 and R4 researchers) 

EU total  

By career stage  By FOS 

By gender 

2012 (n=7,131) 

31.0% 

2016 (n=8,073) 

27.4% 

2019 (n=7,653) 

26.5% 

R2: 30.1% 

R3: 31.5% 

R4: 31.1% 

R2: 30.2% 

R3: 27.5% 

R4: 25.5% 

R2: 36.3% 

R3: 23.6% 

R4: 26.3% 

MED: 26.3% 

F: 25.2% 

NAT: 34.4% 

M: 34.2% 

SOC: 30.5% 

MED: 19.5% 

F: 25.1% 

NAT: 28.2% 

M: 28.7% 

SOC: 30.3% 

MED: 21.6% 

F: 24.8% 

NAT: 25.9% 

M: 27.5% 

SOC: 30.3% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 

The results of the MORE4 EU HE Survey161 indicate that the frequency and patterns (origin 
and  destination)  of  international  mobility  during  post-PhD  career  stages  have  remained 
stable.  

A certain level of stability can also be observed across the three MORE studies at country 
level: over the last ten years,  countries  such  as  Luxembourg, Switzerland, Belgium  and 
Austria have always had higher shares of mobile researchers than the EU-average. At the 
other  end  of  the  scale,  a  number  of  Eastern  and  Southern  European  countries  show 
persistently low shares of mobile researchers, such as Poland, Malta, the Czech Republic, 
Latvia and Portugal. This is shown in detail in the figure below. 

161 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

127 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 15: >3 month international mobility in post-PhD career stages, by country 
(2019) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Note:  

Only R2, R3 and R4 researchers. 
Based on question 62: “After gaining your highest educational qualification (PhD or other), how would 
you typify your international mobility experience?” 
(2019: n=8,300) 

The  results  of  the  Global  survey  indicate  that  long-term  international  mobility  is  less 
common  in  2020  than in  2017  (39%  vs  50%),  and  hence  converges  towards  the  levels 
found in the EU survey. 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS CURRENTLY WORKING OUTSIDE EUROPE WITH >3 MONTH 
INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY EXPERIENCE (GLOBAL SURVEY) 

Less than 10 years ago 

More than 10 years ago 

Never 

2017 

49.7% 

12.2% 

38.1% 

2020 

39% 

17.6% 

43.4% 

Source: MORE4 Global Survey (2020), MORE3 Global Survey (2017). 

Comparison between the EU and Global surveys further indicates many similarities in terms 
of the attractiveness of the main destinations for researchers, both within and outside the 
EU. For the EU HE survey, the detailed results are given in Table 8. The top destinations 
are  the  United  States  and  the  larger  European  countries:  Germany,  United  Kingdom, 
France  and  Italy.  The  same  European  countries  are  also  often  mentioned  in  the  Global 
survey as popular destinations for non-EU researchers. Table 8 shows the main countries 
of  origin  of  the  researchers  moving  to  the  main  destinations.  This  table  shows  that  the 
larger  European  countries  are  not  only  important  destinations;  they  also  constitute  the 
main countries of origin. 

128 

0%20%40%60%80%100%PercentMTHRBGLVPLPTSKGBLTITFIELCZEECYEUNLFRSEESISROSIHUIEDEBENODKATCHLU> 3 months mobile in the last ten years> 3 months mobile more than ten years agoNon-mobility > 3 months 
 
 
Table  8:  Main  destination  countries  for  >3  month  post-PhD  mobility  (EU28 
citizens) 

DESTINATION 

United States 

Germany 

United Kingdom 

France 

Italy 

Sweden 

Austria 

Spain 

2019 SHARE 
(%) 

(2016 SHARE) 

MORE4 (2019) MAIN 
CITIZENSHIPS OF ORIGIN 

MORE3 (2016) MAIN 
CITIZENSHIPS OF ORIGIN 

16% 

(16%) 

10% 

(11%) 

9% 

(11%) 

6% 

(7%) 

6% 

(5%) 

3% 

(3%) 

3% 

(3%) 

3% 

(3%) 

Italy (11%)  

Germany (10%)  

Greece (9%) 

Italy (10%)  

Austria (8%)  

Croatia (6%) 

Slovakia (6%) 

Italy (16%)  

Greece (10%) 

Spain (10%)  

Germany (6%) 

Italy (17%) 

Spain (11%) 

Romania (9%) 

Romania (15%) 

Greece (12%)  

France (6%) 

Croatia (6%) 

Italy (14%)  

Finland (11%)  

Germany (10%) 

Germany (15%) 

Italy (15%)  

Slovenia (10%)  

Slovakia (7%) 

Italy (14%)  

Portugal (12%)  

Romania (11%) 

Greece (9.6%) 

Germany (9.1%) 

Italy (8.9%) 

Spain (7.6%) 

Italy (7.3%) 

Poland (6.3%) 

Greece (14.8%) 

Germany (10.3%) 

Italy (6.1%) 

Italy (13.4%) 

Germany (7.5%) 

Spain (12.8%) 

Italy (11.3%) 

Greece (10.6%) 

Finland (19.5%) 

Estonia (12.6%) 

Germany (10.3%) 

Germany (21.5%) 

Italy (17.7%) 

Austria (7.6%) 

Hungary (7.6%) 

Italy (16.7%) 

Portugal (11.1%) 

Greece (8.9%) 

Belgium (8.9%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Reading note: of the total number of moves by researchers who currently work in the EU but who were mobile 
to the US for more than three months during post-doctoral career stages, 11% were made by Italian citizens, 
10% by German citizens and 9% by Greek citizens. When the move is made to the same country as the 
country of citizenship (e.g. moves to France made by French citizens) it is not reflected in the table. 
Notes:  

Only R2, R3 and R4 researchers.  
Based on question 64: “Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves in the last ten years 
of your research career after your PhD up to (but excluding) your current position in which you are 
employed.” 
(2019: n=3,120) ((2016: n=3,249) 

9.1.2.  Motives and barriers 

Motives: comparison over time and between MORE surveys indicates that the motives for 
and  barriers  to  mobility  are  very  stable.  The  general  motives  tend  to  be  the  same: 
international networking, career progression, research autonomy and working with leading 
scientists. These motives were found in the EU HE survey and in the Global survey using 
two  different  types  of  analysis.  First,  we  analysed  the  motives  indicated  for  each 
researcher’s most recent mobility experience; second, we analysed the one main motive 
for each individual move by the researcher. The same patterns were found in the Global 
survey, where the main motive for each individual move was analysed. Table 9 shows an 

129 

 
 
 
 
overview of the main motives for mobility indicated by respondents to the EU HE and the 
Global surveys162. 

Table 9: Main motives for mobility (2019) 

SURVEY 

MOTIVES INDICATED FOR THE LAST 

MAIN MOTIVE FOR EACH 

MOBILITY EXPERIENCE OF THE 

INDIVIDUAL MOVE 

RESEARCHERS (EU MOVE) 

EU HE survey 

International networking (87%) 

Career progression (24%) 

Research autonomy (85%) 

Working with leading scientists (20%) 

Working with leading scientists (83%)  

Research autonomy (16%) 

Career progression (81%) 

GLOBAL SURVEY 

For EU researchers to move outside 

Working with leading scientists (23%) 

Career progression (12%) 

International networking (12%) 

Europe: 

Availability of a suitable 
position (85%) 

Career progression (80%) 

For non-EU researchers to move to 

Europe: 

International networking 
(97%)  

Working with leading 

scientists (96%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE4 Global survey (2020). 

Barriers:  while  funding  and  positions  are  less  important  as  motives  for  international 
mobility,  a  lack  thereof  constitutes  the  main  barriers  to  international  mobility.  Table  10 
presents the most frequently cited barriers to mobility indicated by researchers in the EU 
HE and Global surveys. Researchers currently working in Europe (the EU HE survey) are 
more likely to indicate a lack of funding for mobility and research, and a lack of available 
positions as the main barriers. These are also the main barriers indicated by EU researchers 
working outside Europe (the Global survey). Non-EU researchers working outside Europe 
appear to perceive barriers differently: other, more ‘administrative’ factors tend to play a 
larger role for this group, such as difficulties in obtaining a visa or work permit, the transfer 
of pensions, or access to social security entitlements. 

Table 10: Main barriers to mobility (2019) 

SURVEY 

TARGET GROUP 

MAIN BARRIERS  

EU HE survey 

For  non-EU  researchers  moving 

Other personal/family reason (30%) 

to EU 

Obtaining funding for research (29%) 

Finding adequate accommodation (26%) 

162 Respondents had the option to indicate other motives: access to research facilities and 
equipment; availability of research funding; quality of training and education; availability of 
suitable positions; culture and/or language; balance between teaching and research time; 
remuneration; personal/family reasons; social security and other benefits; pension plan; job 
security; and working conditions. 

130 

 
 
                                                 
 
SURVEY 

TARGET GROUP 

MAIN BARRIERS  

EU and non-EU researchers (last 

Obtaining funding for mobility (57%) 

EU move) 

Obtaining funding for research (55%) 

Finding a suitable position (53%) 

Non mobile researchers 

Other personal/family reason (79%) 

Logistical problems (61%) 

Obtaining funding for research (61%) 

Global survey 

For  EU 

researchers  working 

Finding a suitable position (84%) 

outside  Europe  and  wanting  to 

Obtaining funding for research (77%) 

return to Europe 

Obtaining funding for mobility (72%) 

For  non-EU  researchers  having 

Logistical problems (36%) 

been Europe before and wanting 

Obtaining funding for mobility (35%) 

to come back to Europe 

Obtaining a visa or work permit (34%) 

For  mobile  non-EU  researchers 

Obtaining research funding (72%) 

working  outside  Europe  and  not 

Transfer of pensions (72%)  

having been in Europe before 

Social security entitlements (70%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE4 Global survey (2020). 

Forced/escape mobility: the MORE3 and MORE4 surveys enquired about the degree of 
freedom researchers had in their decisions to be mobile. These surveys distinguish between 
escape (forced), expected (chosen) and exchange (chosen) mobility: 

-  Escape  mobility  occurs  when  a  researcher  is  ‘pushed’  away  from  his  or  her 
environment due to a lack of funding, positions, for political reasons, etc. Escape 
mobility means that researchers are mobile because they need to be so if they 
wish to pursue a career as a researcher.  

-  The term expected mobility is used for those cases where mobility is perceived 
as a ‘natural’ step in a research  career, but  researchers do not feel obliged to 
move.  
Finally,  exchange  mobility  refers  to  those  situations  in  which  a  researcher 
chooses to move (positive motivation, self-chosen) with the aim of exchanging 
knowledge  and  work  in  an  international  network,  or  with  the  aim  of  using 
international experience as a way to boost his or her career. 

- 

Mobility is above all driven by the interest of researchers in strengthening their networks 
and engaging in knowledge exchange – both for researchers working in Europe and, to a 
lesser  extent,  those  working  outside  Europe.  It  can  be  seen  that  those  cases  in  which 
researchers indicate they were  forced to be mobile due to  a lack of alternatives in their 
home country are much higher among researchers currently working outside Europe.  

Figure 16 below provides an overview of escape mobility (versus expected and exchange 
mobility) by country of citizenship in the EU HE survey, considering all destinations (both 
EU and non-EU moves). Some changes have occurred since the MORE3 EU survey: in 2016, 
the highest shares of forced mobility among researchers who have been mobile for more 
than 3 months were found among citizens of Ireland and Bulgaria, with shares significantly 
above the EU average (48% and 37%, respectively). In 2019, the levels of forced mobility 
are higher in Slovenia, Luxembourg, Estonia and Latvia. Some aspects have changed less 
over time: Italy is still one of the countries with a higher level of forced mobility linked to 
the absence of other options to develop a career in academia. The level of forced mobility 
in the United Kingdom, on the other hand, remains negligible. 

131 

 
Table 11: Escape, expected and exchange mobility (EU28) 

EU SURVEY 

2016 

2019 

Escape 

Forced: No options for research 

9.1% 

6.0% 

Forced: Required for career 
progression 

7.0% 

6.4% 

GLOBAL SURVEY 

(DECISIONS TO MOVE/WORK 
OUTSIDE EUROPE) 

2017 

22.4% 

5.6% 

2020 

18.0% 

5.0% 

Expected  Chosen: Improve working 

15.3%  15.6% 

12.6% 

14.1% 

conditions 

Chosen: Appreciated in career and 
working conditions 

16.8%  17.8% 

12.4% 

13.1% 

Exchange  Chosen: Networking and knowledge 

43.7%  46.8% 

32.6% 

35.7% 

exchange 

Other 

8.0% 

7.5% 

14.5% 

14.1% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016), MORE4 Global Survey (2020), MORE3 
Global Survey (2017). 

Figure  16:  Escape,  expected  and  exchange  mobility,  by  country  of  citizenship 
(EU28) (2019) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: Only R2, R3 and R4 researchers who were >3 month mobile in the last 10 years. Share of researchers 
who have been >3 month mobile in post-PhD career and who experienced a specific degree of freedom in their 
decision to become mobile. 

9.1.3.  Effects of mobility 

International  mobility  is  perceived  by  researchers  as  having  a  positive  effect  on  a  wide 
range of dimensions. On the one hand, mobility is perceived as having a strong impact on 
researchers´ international contacts and networks, as well as on the acquisition of advanced 
research skills and researchers´ recognition within the research community. On the other 
hand, job options outside academia, salary and financial conditions, quality of life, and the 
degree  to  which  researchers  apply  Open  Science  approaches  receive  lower  scores.  The 
MORE3 survey produced very similar results to those displayed here (except for the item 
on Open Science, which has been included for the first time in MORE4). The patterns are 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
also stable over time when we compare the effects of mobility experiences that took place 
10 years ago, five years ago and at the current time. Comparison with the results of MORE2 
and MORE3 confirms this finding. 

Figure 17: Overall effects of mobility experience on research career (EU28) 

Source: MORE4EU HE survey (2019) 

Notes:  Only  R2,  R3  and  R4  researchers  who  were  >3  month  mobile  in  the  last  10  years.  Share  of  mobile 

researchers who indicated the effect of the entire mobility experience on a specific aspect of their career to be a 
(strong) increase, (strong) decrease or unchanged. 

As with motives and barriers, we find strong agreement on the effects of mobility across 
different analyses. In all types of analysis, regardless of origin or destination, we find that 
international networking, collaboration and career progression are the main positive effects 
of international mobility. The main effects thus correspond to  researchers’ main motives 
for becoming mobile. Remuneration was not one of these main motives, and we similarly 
find that an increase in salary is not a common (immediate) effect of mobility. We find: 

-  EU  HE  survey  (see  Figure  17):  mobility  is  perceived  as  having  increased  or 
strongly increased researchers´ international contacts and networks, as well as 
their  advanced  research  skills  and  their  recognition  within  the  research 
community. On the other hand, researchers tend to have less positive views on 
the effects of mobility on access to job options outside academia, the progression 
of  salary  and  financial  conditions,  or  their  understanding/application  of  Open 
Science approaches.  

-  Global  survey,  EU  researchers  working  outside  Europe:  the  largest  positive 
effects  of  mobility  are  observed  in  terms  of  gaining  an  international  network 
(72%),  overall  career  progression  (65%)  and  gaining  recognition  within  the 
research community (62%). This is consistent with the findings on the motives 
for mobility. 

-  Global  survey,  non-EU  researchers  who  have  worked  in  the  EU  in  the  past: 
international  mobility  is  considered  to  have  a  larger  effect  on:  international 
network  effects  (92%),  research  skills  (83%)  and  collaboration  with  other 

133 

0%20%40%60%80%100%PercentInternational contacts/networkAdvanced research skillsRecognition in the research communityQuality of outputOverall career progressionQuantity of outputCollaboration with other (sub)fields of researchNumber of co-authored publicationsJob options in academiaAbility to obtain competitive funding for basic researchNational contact/networkQuality of lifeUnderstanding/applying Open Science approachesProgression in salary and financial conditionsJob options outside academiaStrongly increasedIncreasedRemained unchangedDecreasedStrongly decreased 
 
sub(fields)  of  research  (80%).  These  results  are  also  consistent  with  those 
obtained in the 2017 Global Survey. 

9.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

International mobility is generally considered a key dimension of international knowledge 
exchange and circulation. This type of mobility is considered to have positive effects both 
at  system  level  and  at  the  level  of  individual  researchers.  At  system  level,  international 
mobility  helps  to  create  a  sufficiently  large  pool  of  researchers  to  develop  innovative 
research,  while  at individual level  it  has  an impact  on  career  progression,  collaboration, 
and  scientific  productivity163.  In  parallel  with the  development  of  scientific  works  on  the 
importance and effects of international mobility, there has been an increase in the policy 
attention paid to international mobility at regional and country level.   

In  relation  to  the  system  perspective  in  the  literature,  the  ERA  aims  to  create  a  critical 
mass  of  excellent  researchers.  The  third  ERA  Priority164  sets  the  goal  of  an  open  labour 
market  for  researchers  (facilitating  mobility,  supporting  training  and  ensuring  attractive 
careers). A central aspect of this also relates to the fifth ERA priority: optimal exchange 
and circulation of knowledge, which aims to valorise collaboration and mobility, as well as 
optimising knowledge exchange without borders. 

By strengthening the ERA through the 2020 Communication165, the European Commission 
reinforces its commitment to fostering the international dimension in research. The main 
policy goals for the international mobility of researchers can thus be identified as: 

-  Quantity  of  researchers:  research  careers  need  to  be  attractive  in  order  to 
draw in new talented researchers and retain them within the research profession 
at later career stages. Options for international mobility are one aspect of this. 

-  Research excellence: researchers will be drawn to the most attractive research 
environments.  This  relates  to  the  second  strategic  objective  of  the  2020  ERA 
Communication:  “Improve  access  to  excellent  facilities  and  infrastructures  for 
researchers  across  the  EU”;  and  the  fourth  objective:  “Strengthen  mobility  of 
researchers  and  free  flow  of  knowledge  and  technology”166.  Mobility  thus 
encourages  the  development  of  competitive  research  environments  and 
international  networks,  which  are  positive  for  scientific  productivity  and 
excellence. This also relates to the point made in  Sections 6 and 7 that career 
paths and working conditions in the EU must be attractive enough in the context 
of  worldwide  competition  to  entice  the  most  talented  researchers167,  ensuring 
brain circulation rather than brain drain. 

163 Fernández-Zubieta, A. & Guy, K. (2010). Developing the European Research Area: Improving 
knowledge flows via researcher mobility. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, JRC-IPTS, p.12. 
164  European Commission. Open Labour Market for Researchers. Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/open-labour-market-for-researchers_en.htm  
165 European Commission (2020). Communication. A New ERA for Research and Innovation. 
166 Ibid. 
167 Hunter, R.S., Oswald, A.J. & Charlton, B.G. ‘The Elite Brain Drain*’. The Economic Journal 119, 
no. 538 (2009): F231–F251. 

134 

 
                                                 
 
What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
mobility? 

Analysis of the motives, barriers and effects relating to international mobility identified in 
MORE4  confirm  the  findings  of  previous  MORE  studies.  This  analysis  clearly  shows  a 
distinction between those factors that drive researchers to engage in mobility, and those 
that remove barriers, thus enabling more researchers to engage in mobility. The  former 
are  factors  mainly  relating  to  scientific  knowledge  production  (career  progression, 
international networking, working with leading scientists) that point to the importance to 
researchers of research excellence. The latter factors – those removing barriers – are more 
practical  in  nature,  relating  strongly  to  the  family  situation  of  researchers  and/or  to 
preconditions  for  mobility  such  as  research  funding  and  the  availability  of  a  suitable 
position. These findings are in line with the literature: researchers move to improve their 
career, and stay or return for more personal reasons, or due to a lack of funding or position. 
Improving  scientific  knowledge  production  factors  hence  creates  motives  or 
incentives to move countries in the first place – they are drivers of mobility and indicators 
of  the  attractiveness  of  a  research  system.  Reducing  barriers  to  mobility  by  increasing 
research funding and available positions, acts as an enabler of mobility168.  

In  terms  of  mobility  flows,  the  MORE4  EU  HE  and  Global  surveys  show  that  the  same 
countries  continue  to  be  the  most  popular  destinations  for  researchers.  This  finding 
indicates heterogeneity among the countries of the EU in terms of research capacity and 
systems, leading to asymmetrical mobility flows. Policy actions will thus need to address 
both drivers and enablers, but with sufficient attention to the difference between countries. 

Specific analysis from the Global survey on motives, barriers and effects in relation to the 
mobility of non-EU researchers who have worked in Europe and of European researchers 
working outside Europe, will be discussed in Section 13, to assess the attractiveness and 
policy implications for  Europe as  a research area.  However, at this point the analysis of 
international mobility already emphasises the positive network effects of global exchanges: 
non-European researchers maintain a strong network in Europe and often continue their 
cooperation  with  European  partners  after  their  stay  in  Europe  (see  the  MORE4  Global 
survey169). The most important effects of a current stay in Europe by non-EU researchers 
(as identified in the MORE4 EU HE survey) are indeed gaining an international network and 
recognition within the research community. Research funding and career progression are 
also indicated by researchers as positive effects of mobility to the EU. On a positive note, 
the ERA Progress Report 2018 already observed an increased number of co-publications 
with non-ERA partners.  

It  will  thus  be  important  to  maximise  the  positive  effects  of  international  mobility  and 
exchange, e.g. by addressing policy actions towards those factors that determine Europe’s 
attractiveness to non-EU researchers or in relation to return mobility. The aim of this would 
be  to  make  the  ERA  an  attractive  region  for  researchers  from  outside  Europe,  and  to 

168 Note that research funding also affects scientific knowledge production; it is, however, not a 
main motive for becoming mobile. 
169 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

135 

 
                                                 
 
encourage collaboration between EU and non-EU researchers (knowledge exchange) – in 
line with both the third and the sixth ERA priorities. 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

A central aspect of the ERA and its third priority is the optimal exchange and circulation of 
knowledge, with the aim of valorising collaboration and mobility and optimising knowledge 
exchange among the countries of the ERA. The Commission put forth a series of initiatives 
to achieve this goal by promoting transparent, open and merit-based recruitment as a way 
to remove barriers to international mobility. Examples of these actions are170: 

-  Strengthening the EURAXESS network so that it becomes an efficient provider of 
support for researchers, with EURAXESS services covering social security issues 
in different aspects of their functioning; 

-  Setting up a European Accreditation Mechanism for the development of human 
resources management in research institutions, in alignment with the European 
Charter of Researchers and the Code of Conduct; 

-  Supporting greater automatic recognition of comparable degrees within the ERA; 
-  Addressing social security barriers to researchers in the EU, and facilitating the 
entry  and  stay  of  third-country  national  researchers  (pension  portability, 
supplementary pension rights and funds). 

The commitment in the 2012 ERA Communication to supporting employers in ensuring that 
pensions  do  not  represent  an  obstacle  to  researchers’  mobility  was  followed  by  the 
establishment  of  a  Retirement  Savings  Vehicle  for  European  Research  Institutions 
(RESAVER).  RESAVER  incorporates  a  pan-European  supplementary  pension  fund  for 
researchers, ensuring the portability of this supplementary pension between countries and 
positions. 

The  2020  ERA  Communication171  also  announces  several  measures  to  support  the 
international mobility of researchers, such as a toolbox of support for researchers' careers 
that will provide them with information on their skills, learning, careers and opportunities. 
Another supporting measure is the broadening of EURAXESS services, network and portals 
into an ERA Talent Platform. This platform will be an online ‘one-stop shop’ that will take 
advantage of links to Europass, the EU platform for people to manage their learning and 
careers, and the EURES network of European public employment services172. 

In  addition,  the  dimension  of  international  mobility  is  embedded  into  several  funding 
schemes at EU level. These include the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA)173. These 
actions are rooted in the "Excellence" Pillar of the Horizon 2020 Programme, and provide 
funding  opportunities  for  mobility,  training  and  career  development  at  all  stages  of  a 
researcher's career. Funding is allocated with the objective of “permitting researchers to 

170 European Commission. Open Labour Market for Researchers. Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/open-labour-market-for-researchers_en.html 
171 European Commission (2020). Communication. A New ERA for Research and Innovation. 
172 Ibid. 
173  European Commission. Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions. Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/marie-sk%C5%82odowska-curie-
actions 

136 

 
                                                 
 
cooperate freely across borders and at enabling undertakings to exploit the internal market 
potential  to  the  full”174.  Partial  evidence  of  the  success  of  the  actions  in  this  context  is 
provided by the data from the MORE4 EU HE survey (see Section 15.4).  

European Research Council (ERC) grants are also designed to promote the development of 
the ERA as an open labour market. These grants are allocated to individual researchers, 
who can then decide where they want to carry out their research – i.e. in which country 
and  at  which  university  (the  “money  follows  researcher”  principle).  ERC  grants  do  not 
require  international  mobility,  but  they  aim  to  facilitate  it  from  two  angles:  they  allow 
individual  mobility  through  portability  of  funding  (i.e.  they  enable  mobility);  and  they 
provide incentives for more attractive working conditions for researchers (i.e. they drive 
mobility). More information about ERC grants, based on the results of the MORE4 EU HE 
survey, can be found in Section 15.4. 

A balance between removing barriers and improving the conditions that drive the mobility 
of researchers will be essential both to attract mobile researchers and to enable them to 
undertake this step to or within Europe. Given that some of the most important drivers of 
inward mobility are those relating to scientific excellence, policy attempts which focus on 
administrative factors (e.g. visa procedures), human resource practices (e.g. Charter and 
Code) or even social security and pension, will only address part of the problem. As stated 
by the Joint Research Centre in a report on international mobility175, differences between 
countries  will  persist  as  long  as  excellence  in  research  is  fragmented  and  dispersed.  By 
contributing to  research excellence in  the Member States and harmonising existing best 
practices, the EU will not only foster ‘internal’ international circulation, but also strengthen 
the attractiveness of the  ERA  outside Europe.  Thus, the policy aim could be to optimise 
circulation  and  international  mobility  by  reducing  barriers  (enabling  mobility)  and 
improving  the  factors  driving  mobility,  thereby  both  encouraging  knowledge  circulation 
within Europe and attracting researchers from outside Europe.  

In  addition  to  removing  barriers  in  order  to  enable  mobility,  and  funding  schemes  that 
support and encourage mobility, a number of other measures can be considered to drive 
mobility and thus increase its effects. The effects of mobility can also be further optimised 
by  encouraging  instruments  that  allow  researchers  to  return  voluntarily  to  their  home 
country,  maintaining  the  network  they  have  gained  from  their  mobility  experience  and 
benefitting from the knowledge exchange this entails. The MORE4 Global survey indicated 
that interest in return mobility (during the next year) is low among later-stage researchers. 
This is probably explained by the  fact that later-stage  researchers are more settled and 
established  in  their  current  positions  and  therefore  less  inclined  to  look  for  a  change  in 
positions. In order to be effective, it is important that these types of actions run in parallel 
with actions to improve the attractiveness of research conditions in the home country.  

174 Journal of the European Union (2012). 2012. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European 
Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Retrieved from 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT   
175 Fernández-Zubieta, A. & Guy, K. (2010). Developing the European Research Area: Improving 
knowledge flows via researcher mobility. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, JRC-IPTS. 

137 

 
                                                 
 
ERA  progress  2018  has  revealed  that  over  recent  years,  multiple  initiatives  have  been 
implemented at national level with the aim of supporting and improving the international 
mobility of researchers. Some of the key areas for action included the improvement and 
relaxation of migration rules for researchers, as well as additional funding opportunities for 
mobile researchers: 

-  According to the ERA progress report 2018, Austria’s NAP under Priority 3 aimed 
to create a welcoming culture for researchers. Some progress was achieved by 
further developing  the Red-White-Red card, which is expected to attract more 
top-level researchers. 

-  A number of actions were taken in Belgium concerning progress under the 4th 
priority  (open  labour  market  for  researchers).  In  2015,  a  guide  for  mobile 
researchers coming to Belgium was published on the Belgian EURAXESS portal, 
and  dealt  with  more  practical  and  administrative  mobility  issues.  It  contained 
information  for  mobile  researchers  on  visas  and  residence  permits,  social 
security, taxes and bringing along family members. In addition, several events 
were organised in Belgium with the aim of fully informing newcomers (research 
institutions and funders) about the principles of the Charter and Code and their 
implementation  in  research  institutions  via  the  Human  Resources  Strategy  for 
Researchers  (HRS4R).  Moreover,  several  publications  and  information  events 
about  EURAXESS  were  organised  for  researchers  in  Belgium.  All  of  these 
measures, aimed opening up the Belgian labour market to foreign researchers, 
were planned in the Belgian national ERA roadmap. 

-  As  part  of  international  cooperation  in  education  and  foreign  science  policy, 
Switzerland  has  been  awarding  government  excellence  scholarships  to  foreign 
scholars  and  artists.  These  one-year  scholarships  are  intended  to  promote 
international exchange and research cooperation between Switzerland and over 
180 countries. 

-  According to the Denmark National Report under the ERA Progress report 2018, 
in recent years, universities have dedicated a great deal of attention to attracting 
foreign researchers by establishing special support services such as assistance 
with  visas,  residence  and  work  permits,  and  free  events  that  provide  general 
information  on  moving  to  Denmark.  Moreover,  while  Danish  universities  are 
obliged  to  publicly  advertise  all  vacant  positions,  those  at  associate  professor 
and  professor  levels  must  be  advertised  internationally.  The  National  Report 
under the ERA 2018 progress report also indicates that RPOs in Denmark have 
increased their HR efforts to attract more researchers from abroad. Denmark has 
also been successful in Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, which strongly supports 
the  recruitment  of  foreign  researchers  in  Denmark  while  also  stimulating 
outgoing mobility. 
In  Estonia,  the  government  has  aimed  to  increase  the  mobility  of  (incoming) 
researchers  by  relaxing  migration  rules  for  innovative  start-up  companies,  to 
ensure a smart and flexible talent management and migration policy. As a result, 
in 2017, the government created a list of 339 start-up companies that can hire 
foreign  workers  according  to  less  stringent  criteria.  In  addition,  Estonia  has 
bilateral  cooperation  agreements  with  some  third  countries,  including  China, 
Brazil, Canada, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Philippines, Mexico, Russia, the 
US  and  Thailand.  In  accordance  with  these  agreements,  Estonia  offers 
scholarships and mobility grants to students and researchers from some of these 
countries. 
In France, the legal environment has been made more favourable. Recruitment 
procedures  in  French  PROs  have  become  more  open  to  foreign  researchers. 
Moreover,  the  Law  of  7  March  2016  created  a  multiannual  card  called  the 

- 

- 

138 

 
“passeport talent”, for researchers and doctoral candidates. This four-year visa 
is proposed to scientists from their first year in France. 

-  Croatia  also  took  action  to  encourage  international  cooperation  by  supporting 
researcher  mobility.  More  specifically,  Croatia  adopted  the  Action  Plan  for 
Researchers’ Mobility for the period 2017-2020. The main objective of the Plan 
is  to  strengthen  human  resources  in  science,  encouraging  mobility  and 
international  cooperation  among  Croatian  scientists.  It  also  seeks  to  improve 
working conditions for Croatian and foreign researchers. Since 2013, Croatia has 
also included international mobility as a criterion for evaluating the performance 
of public RPOs. 

-  According to the ERA progress report 2018, in Hungary, different programmes 
and initiatives have recently been implemented to overcome the issue of a deficit 
of high-skilled professionals in the field of Science and Technology (S&T). One of 
these  initiatives  was  the  Momentum  programme,  managed  by  the  Hungarian 
Academy  of  Sciences,  which  aims  to  encourage  outstanding  Hungarian 
researchers working abroad to return to work in Hungary. 
In  2017,  Poland  established  the  National  Agency  for  Academic  Exchange 
(NAWA): this is the governmental agency that deals with academic exchanges. 
It  manages  various  programmes  and  actions  aimed  at  stimulating  such 
exchanges.  The  new  agency  will  offer  inbound  and  outbound  mobility 
scholarships,  and  introduce  measures  to  stimulate  international  cooperation 
among Polish scientists. 

- 

139 

 
10.  OTHER FORMS OF INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Section 8.1.2 and 8.1.3), MORE4 Global Survey report (Section 6.1.2). 

10.1.  Key findings 

First, the MORE4 findings show that three out of 10 researchers have engaged in short-
term mobility during the last 10 years, confirming a declining trend since 2012. Second, 
conferences are the most frequent reason for this type of short-term mobility. Third, long-
term mobile researchers are more likely to undertake short-term mobility. This suggests 
that  some  researchers  are  more  “mobile”  than  others.  Lastly,  ‘virtual  mobility’  is 
increasingly perceived as having had an impact on reducing short-term mobility. 

140 

 
 
10.1.1. 

Short-term mobility 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WITH <3 MONTH INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY EXPERIENCE IN THE LAST 
10 YEARS 

(of all R2, R3 and R4 researchers) 

2012 
(n=7,131) 

EU TOTAL 

41.0% 

2016 
(n=8,073) 

37.2% 

2019 
(n=7,653) 

31.8% 

BY CAREER STAGE  BY FOS 

BY GENDER 

R2: 35.8% 

R3: 41.0% 

R4: 45.1% 

R2: 31.0% 

R3: 37.8% 

R4: 40.1% 

R2: 30.3% 

R3: 29.8% 

R4: 35.5% 

MED: 36.5% 

F: 37.0% 

NAT: 42.3% 

M: 43.3% 

SOC: 41.0% 

MED: 34.9% 

F: 35.1% 

NAT: 37.8 % 

M: 38.4% 

SOC: 37.4% 

MED: 25.4% 

F: 31.9% 

NAT: 30.9% 

M: 31.8% 

SOC: 37.1% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Note: Based on question 77: “Short term mobility (<3 months)”  

The  share  of  researchers  who  have  had  short-term  mobility  experiences  in  the  last  10 
years shows a downward trend since 2012, declining from 41% to 32% in 2019. Among 
researchers  currently  working  outside  Europe,  this  indicator  shows  greater  stability.  In 
both  2017  and  2020,  40%  of  researchers  currently  working  outside  the  EU  had  worked 
abroad  for  less  than  three  months  at  least  once  in  the  preceding  10  years.  The  MORE4 
surveys  confirm  a  finding  also  observed  in  MORE3:  long-  and  short-term  mobility  are 
interrelated,  and  researchers  fall  into  two  main  groups:  mobile  and  non-mobile 
researchers. The former are more prone to engage in all types of international mobility, 
while  the  latter  are  less  likely  to  move.  However,  the  effects  of  long-  and  short-term 
mobility are not the same, and have changed over time. In MORE3, researchers who had 
been long-term mobile (i.e. for more than three months) during the preceding ten years, 
tended to attribute collaboration to mobility to a greater extent than those who had been 
short-term mobile (<3 months), or those who had never been mobile. In MORE4, however, 
the findings are reversed: on average, individuals who have been short-term mobile within 
the  last  three  years  tend  to  link  collaboration  to  previous  mobility  experiences  more 
strongly than those with a long-term mobility experience in the last ten years. This occurs 
for all types of collaboration: collaboration that takes place within the same country, with 
researchers located in the EU, and in non-EU countries. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  stability  of  this  indicator  over  time  at  EU  level  conceals 
important variations at country level. As in MORE3, the analysis of short-term mobility by 
country shows that most countries are situated around the EU average of 32% (see Figure 
18).  In  Latvia  (24%),  Malta  (26%)  and  Ireland  (27%),  for  instance,  a  smaller  share  of 
researchers have engaged in this type of mobility during the last 10 years, relative to the 
share seen in countries such as Romania (42%), Italy (41%), Belgium (39%), Switzerland 
(38%), Croatia (38%) and Luxembourg (38%). Compared with the MORE3 results, it can 
be seen that some countries have experienced a large variation over time: Romania and 
Luxembourg have gone from being among the countries with a lower level of short-term 
mobility  in  2016  (22%  and  29%,  respectively)  to  being  among  the  countries  with  the 
highest levels in 2019. 

141 

 
 
Figure 18: <3 month international mobility at post-PhD career stage in the last 
10 years, by country (2019) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019)  

10.1.2. 

Short travel for conferences, meetings and visits 

A further finding, consistent with the results of previous MORE studies, is that conferences 
stand out as the most frequent type of short-term international travel reported in the MORE 
surveys.  Conferences  (97.3%)  are  followed  by  meetings  with  supervisors,  partners  or 
collaborators  (90.6%)  and  study  visits,  research  visits  or  fieldwork  (88.9%)  (see  Figure 
19). 

Figure 19: Participation in conferences, visits and meetings, by frequency (EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes: Only R2, R3 and R4 researchers. 

142 

0%20%40%60%80%100%PercentLVMTIEEEELCYSISEFIPLGBNODEPTLTEUNLISCZESATSKFRHUDKBGLUHRCHBEITRO<3 month mobile in the last ten years<3 months mobile more than ten years ago onlynever <3 month mobile40.545.411.32.731.341.817.59.422.943.322.811.10%20%40%60%80%100%PercentConferencesMeetingsVisitsOftenSometimesRarelyNever 
 
 
10.1.3. 

International collaboration 

INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION  

Year 

EU28 total 

Researchers in 
your country 

2016 

62.9% 

By (current) career 
stage 
R1: 51.2% 
R2: 54.4% 
R3: 63.1% 
R4: 73.7% 

2019 

63.1% 

Researchers in EU 
countries 

2016 

63.2% 

2019 

65.3% 

Researchers in 
non-EU countries 

2016 

45.9% 

2019 

48.8% 

R1: 43.8 
R2: 45.9 
R3: 67.7 
R4: 70.4 

R1: 39.5% 
R2: 48.3% 
R3: 67.7% 
R4: 78.2% 

R1: 41.3 
R2: 41.1 
R3: 68.8 
R4: 78.9 

R1: 22.9% 
R2: 31.0% 
R3: 47.1% 
R4: 64.8% 

R1: 24.6 
R2: 25.8 
R3: 51.4 
R4: 63.6 

By FOS 

By gender 

F: 62.2% 
M: 63.4% 

F: 62.4% 
M: 63.5% 

F: 60.1% 
M: 65.2% 

F: 63.1% 
M: 66.7% 

F: 40.5% 
M: 49.3% 

F: 43.9% 
M: 52.1% 

NAT: 67.0% 
ENG: 64.1% 
MED: 61.9% 
AGR: 61.3% 
SOC: 60.6% 
HUM: 60.4% 
NAT: 64.5% 
ENG: 56.9% 
MED: 62.6% 
AGR: 65.7% 
SOC: 62.8% 
HUM: 69.3% 
NAT: 70.0% 
ENG: 65.1% 
MED: 56.0% 
AGR: 60.0% 
SOC: 60.9% 
HUM: 65.3% 
NAT: 69.0% 
ENG: 64.0% 
MED: 60.8% 
AGR: 65.6% 
SOC: 63.2% 
HUM: 70.8% 
NAT: 56.6% 
ENG: 43.1% 
MED: 40.4% 
AGR: 47.2% 
SOC: 42.7% 
HUM: 44.4% 
NAT: 53.2% 
ENG: 45.7% 
MED: 46.1% 
AGR: 46.4% 
SOC: 46.6% 
HUM: 54.5% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: Multiple collaboration types per respondent are possible. 

Patterns of international collaboration have also remained stable over time: 65% of EU HE 
researchers collaborated with other EU researchers in 2019 compared to 63% in 2016; in 
2019,  49%  collaborated  with  non-EU  researchers  (46%  in  2016).    Patterns  observed  in 
MORE3  at  the  level  of  individual  researchers  have  also  been  confirmed  in  the  MORE4 
surveys:  international  collaboration  is  more  frequent  among  researchers  in  later  career 
stages, among those working in the Natural Sciences, and among male researchers.  

However, considerable heterogeneity exists between countries with regard to these types 
of collaboration: the shares of those engaging in national collaboration range from 22% in 
Luxembourg and Romania, to more than 80% in Italy or Iceland. In particular, the Nordic 
countries  stand  out  as  having  higher  levels  of  collaboration  with  researchers  located  in 
other  EU  countries.  A  completely  different  situation  can  be  seen  in  Luxembourg  (41%), 
Switzerland (43%) and in some large countries such as Germany (47%) or Spain (55%), 
where  the  shares  are  much  lower.  Collaboration  with  researchers  located  in  non-EU 
countries  is  the  least  frequent  option  in  general,  and  is  even  smaller  in  some  Eastern 
European countries, such as Slovakia, Poland or Bulgaria (34%). Germany and Spain also 
stand out for having lower-then-average levels of this type of collaboration, at 29% and 
39% respectively. The United Kingdom, Sweden and Iceland are the countries with a higher 
share of researchers collaborating with counterparts in non-EU countries: more than half 

143 

 
 
of  researchers  in  these  countries  indicated  that  they  have  been  involved  in  this  type  of 
collaboration. 

10.1.4. 

International virtual mobility 

The survey included questions on the effects of ‘virtual mobility’ on long- and short-term 
international mobility. The findings indicate that virtual mobility has had a great impact on 
reducing short-term mobility (57%) and that this share has increased over time since 2012 
(50%). The same increasing trend is observed when looking at the effect virtual mobility 
has  had  on  reducing  long-term  visits:  the  share  of  researchers  indicating  that  virtual 
mobility has reduced long-term visits has increased from 9% in 2012 to 21% in 2019. 

Figure  20:  Influence  of  web-based  or  virtual  technology  on  international 
behaviour and decisions (EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Notes: Only respondents who collaborate with international partners. 

10.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

The ERA has always paid strong attention to fostering knowledge circulation among the EU 
Member  States.  This  can  be  achieved  by  promoting  researchers´  international  and 
intersectoral mobility (Sections 9 and 12). One of the main effects associated with these 
types of mobility is an increase in collaboration with other researchers and other sectors. 
This chapter has also focused on other forms of mobility – short-term and virtual – that 
can also have an impact on the degree to which researchers collaborate, and knowledge is 
exchanged. The MORE4 survey indicates that levels of collaboration have remained stable 
since 2016. Collaboration with researchers located in other EU countries is reported by the 
same share of researchers as collaboration with researchers in the same country (6 out of 
10 researchers). Collaboration with researchers located outside the  EU still lags behind: 
only 4 out 10 researchers reported collaborating with researchers outside the EU. This is 
related to the focus on international cooperation, the sixth of the ERA priorities, as a way 

144 

50%51%57%9%11%21%35%38%30%80%100%20%40%60%0%It helps to reduce (or even replaces) my short-tem visits (of less than 3 monthsIt helps to reduce (or even replaces) my long-term visits (of 3 months or more)It does not influence my behaviour at all201920162012 
 
“(t)o  ensure  that  Europe  as  a  whole  is  able  to  take  maximum  advantage  of  the  best 
research and innovation opportunities in a global setting.”176  

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
international collaboration? 

Data  from  the  MORE4  surveys  indicate  that  the  EU  is  performing  well  in  terms  of 
international  collaboration.  Further  support  for  initiatives  to  foster  international  mobility 
(see  Section  9)  could  still  play  an  important  role  as  a  key  driver  of  international 
collaboration. The MORE4 EU HE survey177, in line with previous MORE studies, confirms 
that  international  collaboration  is  often  the  result  of  previous  mobility  experiences,  and 
that long-term mobility (i.e. more than three months) has a stronger effect on this than 
short-term mobility. 

Other types of mobility can also play a role in fostering collaboration: this is the case with 
virtual mobility, which is one of the key means via which international collaboration can be 
pursued without the need to physically travel to other countries. Lower costs and ease of 
access mean that this type of collaboration is being increasingly used. The MORE4 EU HE 
survey was launched before the outbreak of the COVID pandemic, but it is likely that this 
has made this type of collaboration even more widespread.   

The advantages of virtual mobility cannot, however, be equated with the benefits of long-
term physical mobility. This was shown in MORE3 surveys and confirmed by the MORE4 
results.  In  general  terms,  responses  to  these  surveys  over  time  indicate  that  virtual 
mobility is perceived as having an increasing impact on reducing short-term mobility rather 
than reducing long-term mobility. These results suggest that virtual mobility and long-term 
mobility  do  not  fulfil  the  same  needs:  while  virtual  mobility  can  be  useful  during  the 
development of research projects (e.g. reducing the need for short-term visits, enabling 
instantaneous  communication,  etc.),  long-term  international  mobility  can  be  considered 
key to the generation of new contacts and collaborations. 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

There  are  several  EU  programmes  fostering  short-term  mobility  and  international 
collaboration. Some notable examples of these are Erasmus+, plus a number of MSCA sub-
programmes such as RISE, and EU-ICI ECP activities. There are, however, no specific EU 
initiatives  targeting  regional  or  cross-country  imbalances  with  respect  to  these  forms  of 
international  exchange.  The  lower  levels  of  international  collaboration  found  in  Eastern 
European  countries  are  unlikely  to  converge  with  those  in  Western  European  countries 
unless specific measures are taken for this purpose. Because international collaboration is 
often  driven  by  international  mobility  experiences,  promoting  mobility  will  also  promote 
international  collaboration.  Fostering  convergence  between  European  countries  in  their 
levels  of  collaboration  is  also  expected  to  have  an  important  impact  on  individual 
researchers. In general, international collaboration with researchers from other countries 
tends to lead to higher citation rates than those received by publications by one author, or 

176 ERA Progress Report (2018). 
177 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

145 

 
                                                 
 
by contributors from the same country178. Given that citation rates are key to researchers´ 
career  prospects  in  many  fields,  and  the  increasingly  globalised  nature  of  the  academic 
labour  market179,  fostering  access  to  international  collaboration  for  researchers  from 
Eastern Europe might mitigate the current imbalances identified in this regard.  

According to the ERA Progress Report 2018, ERA countries are actively seeking to increase 
their collaboration with third countries. One of the most common practices for establishing 
long-term  and  sustainable  international  partnerships  are  bilateral  agreements:  ERA 
countries cooperate with a wide range of third countries, with the strongest concentration 
of bilateral agreements being with the US, China, Brazil, India, Russia, Japan, South Korea, 
and increasingly, South Africa. Importantly, smaller countries with less-developed national 
research systems are developing and maintaining cooperation with third countries using 
European instruments, as this is regarded as an effective approach. Furthermore, bilateral 
and  multilateral  cooperation  activities  are  growing  –  not  only  between  organisations 
performing research, but also between organisations that fund research, albeit at a slower 
pace.180 

The following non-exhaustive list of initiatives implemented at national level over the last 
few  years  illustrates  how  ERA  countries  seek  to  establish  and  actively  maintain  their 
collaboration with third countries: 

- 

In  2018,  Finland  established  four  Team  Finland  Knowledge  nodes.  The  first 
ambassadors  of  Finnish  education  and  research  –  known  as  ‘Team  Finland 
Knowledge experts’ – have been appointed to Buenos Aires, Beijing, Singapore 
and  Washington,  with  the  objective  of  enhancing  educational  and  research 
collaboration between Finland and these four regions.181 Since 2018, the Team 
Finland Knowledge Network has expanded. The country’s university and science 
specialists now also work in Abu Dhabi, Moscow, New Delhi and Pretoria.182 

-  Germany is one of several ERA countries (a few other examples are mentioned 
in Section 8.2) to have introduced a separate internationalisation strategy, and 
established  innovation  and  research  centres  in  third  countries.  In  2016,  the 
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research redrafted and updated the 
Federal Government’s Strategy on the ‘Internationalisation of Education, Science 
and  Research’,  and  has  increased  its  allocated  budget  for  international 
cooperation. One of the key objectives of this strategy is working with emerging 
and  developing  countries,  leading  to  an  expansion  of  existing  collaboration 
schemes  and  the  creation  of  new  partnerships  with  these  countries.183  In 
addition, Germany has expanded its collaboration with the EU13 Member States 
through the ‘ERA Fellowships programme’184. This scheme was set up as part of 
the  national  strategy  for  the  ERA  to  support  capacity-building  in  the  field  of 

178 Schmoch, U. & Schubert, T. (2008). Are international co-publications an indicator for quality of 
scientific research? Scientometrics, 74(3), 361-377. 
179 There are however ongoing discussions on whether citation rates should be less important in 
recruitment processes and career progression. 
180 ERA Progress Report 2018. Technical Report. 
181 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Finland. 
182 Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland. Team Finland Knowledge network. Retrieved from 
https://minedu.fi/en/team-finland-knowledge-network  
183 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Germany. 
184 Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (2020). ERA Fellowships – Overview. 
Retrieved from https://www.era-fellowships.de/en/era-fellowships-ueberblick.php  

146 

 
 
                                                 
 
science management in the EU13, and to strengthen networking between EU13 
countries  and  German  non-university  research  institutes,  research  funding 
organisations and universities. 

- 

In order to support the internationalisation of R&I, the Austrian Federal Ministry 
of  Education,  Science  and  Research  (BMBWF)  has  signed  agreements  with 
selected target countries. Even though there is a strong focus on neighbouring 
countries and  on Eastern and Southeastern Europe, bilateral agreements  have 
also been concluded with countries outside of the ERA, such as Argentina, China, 
India, the Russian Federation and South Africa. Austria has two Offices of Science 
and Technology, located in the US and China. In addition, the Austrian Research 
Promotion Agency (FFG) is running a dedicated programme, ‘Beyond Europe’, to 
support  the  internationalisation  of  R&I  projects.  This  programme  is  open  to 
businesses,  organisations  performing  research,  and  other  organisations  that 
seek to create and extend collaborations with partners outside Europe (FFG).185 

-  Hungary  has  S&T 

cooperation  agreements  with  36 

countries  at 
intergovernmental level, 10 countries at interinstitutional level, and 20 bilateral 
cooperation  agreements  with  third  countries.  The  body  responsible  for  the 
implementation of intergovernmental S&T agreements is the NRDI Office, which 
is  supported  by  a  network  of  S&T  attachés  in  the  most  important  partner 
countries. Non-ERA countries in which these attachés are present include China, 
Russia, the United States, India, South Korea, Israel and Japan.186 

-  Portugal  is  among  the  stakeholder  countries  in  Atlantic  Interactions,  a  new 
intergovernmental initiative to unleash the potential of the Atlantic. The initiative 
fosters  knowledge-driven  solutions  for  Atlantic-related  and  Global  Societal 
challenges  that  require  interdisciplinary  research  and  innovation  in  complex 
Earth  systems,  through  cooperation  targeting  the  Atlantic.  It  builds  on  the 
success  of  existing  international  framework  agreements  and  supports  the 
objectives  of  ongoing  initiatives  such  as  the  Atlantic  Ocean  Research  Alliance 
(AORA).187 

- 

In 2017, the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and 
Higher Education (STINT) decided to invest SEK 10 million in four projects within 
the  Strategic  Grants  for  Internationalisation  programme  for  the  time  period 
2017–2020:  i)  the  South  Africa–Sweden  University  Forum;  ii)  the  Stockholm 
School of Economics strategic internationalisation program, ‘From International 
to Global: Developing Teaching, Research and Business in Africa’ with a built-in 
faculty  and  student  exchange  programme;  iii)  ASIAQ,  The  Arctic  Science 
Integration Quest; and iv) the internationalisation of the curriculum.188 

-  One  of  the  main  targets  of  the  Italian  National  Action  Plan  (NAP)  regarding 
Priority 6 was to complete the process leading to the successful establishment of 

185 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Germany. 
186 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Hungary. 
187 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Portugal. 
188 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Sweden. 

147 

 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
 
the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) 
programme. Italy has now achieved this target, as the programme has already 
received final approval.189 

- 

Ireland  has  developed  follow-up  initiatives  to  the  International  Strategic 
Cooperation  Award  (ISCA)  programme  implemented  by  Science  Foundation 
Ireland. Funding partnerships have been developed with international funders in 
Brazil, China and India. Irish research institutions are also active in cooperating 
internationally  and  publishing  synchronised  calls,  although  the  most  active 
cooperation takes place with Anglophone countries (e.g. the UK, USA etc.).190 

189 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Italy. 
190 ERA Progress Report 2018. Country Snapshot: Ireland. 

148 

 
 
                                                 
 
11.  INTERDISCIPLINARY MOBILITY AND COLLABORATION 

Source: Based on MORE4 EU HE report (Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2). 

There is no common definition of interdisciplinarity. It can be understood as a way of doing 
research beyond the frontiers of traditional disciplines. In practical terms, this can entail a 
researcher crossing these frontiers in the elaboration of his/her own research agenda, or 
working with other researchers who specialise in other disciplines. Those who favour the 
promotion of interdisciplinarity argue that interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration are 
well  suited  to  addressing  complex  societal  challenges  (including  those  relating  to  the 
Sustainable  Development  Goals),  and  that  interdisciplinary  approaches  foster  academic 
excellence and innovation. Interdisciplinarity not only fosters academic excellence, it can 
also “nurture cohesion at European level, innovative capacities of EU, and may play a key 
role  in  science  diplomacy”191.  Interdisciplinarity  is  therefore  understood  as  a  way  to 

191  European Commission (2015) Minutes from the Workshop: Interdisciplinarity and Research 
Integrity in Open Science. Workshop of the Working Group 5 “Science in Transition” of the 
Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Expert High-Level Group (RISE). Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/openvision/pdf/rise/berlin_workshop_042015-freigabe-
ja.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

149 

 
 
                                                 
 
stimulate disruptive innovation and to bridge the gap between research communities and 
the practical application of research results192.  

Other scholars are less convinced about the positive results of interdisciplinarity in terms 
of social impact or scientific outputs. First, and due to methodological limitations and the 
lack of a commonly-accepted definition for this type of research, little evidence exists of 
the  positive  economic  and  social  impact  of  interdisciplinary  research.  Second, 
interdisciplinarity can jeopardise scientific rigour, since it involves evaluation by peers with 
different  backgrounds  and  different  scientific  standards193.  A  lack  of  common  standards 
and  criteria,  as  well  as  a  shortage  of  peer  reviewers  with  experience  in  evaluating 
interdisciplinary research, poses problems for the evaluation of interdisciplinary research 
proposals194. In relation to this, some authors argue that interdisciplinarity can entail the 
development  of  unconventional  claims  and  approaches  that  risk  being  penalised  due  to 
their  unusual  or  innovative  characteristics195.  This  can  reduce  the  likelihood  of  being 
published  in  recognised  scientific  journals.  Therefore,  interdisciplinary  research  is  often 
riskier than research in existing disciplines, and can lead to less efficiency (for instance, 
publishing fewer articles). The reverse of this argument was put forward by Leahey et al.196 
(2017), who showed that interdisciplinary works received more citations than disciplinary 
ones.  Moreover,  interdisciplinary  knowledge  is  seen  as  enhancing  the  employability  of 
individual researchers197.  

Hence,  opinions  are  mixed  with  respect  to  the  impact  of  interdisciplinary  mobility  on 
researchers´ career progression. In general, interdisciplinary research may remain a risky 
endeavour,  but  the  MORE4  survey  indicates  that  this  factor  is  seen  by  researchers  as 
having a positive effect on both recruitment and career progression. 

11.1.  Key findings 

11.1.1. 

Interdisciplinary mobility 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE SWITCHED TO ANOTHER (SUB)FIELD DURING THEIR 
ACADEMIC CAREER 

(of all EU28 researchers) 

2016 (n=9,412) 

34.3% 

R1: 28.9% 

NAT: 35.5% 

EU28 total 

By career stage 

By FOS 

By gender 

F: 34.2% 

192 European Commission (2015). Quests for interdisciplinarity: A challenge for the ERA and 
HORIZON 2020. Policy Brief by the Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Experts (RISE). 
Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openvision/pdf/rise/allmendinger-interdisciplinarity.pdf  
193 Carrillo, R. & Núñez, L. (2020). Interdisciplinarity. The interaction of different disciplines to 
understand common problems. In: Morin, J.F., Olsson, C. & Atikcan, E.O. (eds.), Research Methods 
in the Social Sciences: An A-Z of key concepts. Oxford University Press. 
194 Science Europe (2019). Symposium Report: Interdisciplinarity. Retrieved from 
https://www.scienceeurope.org/media/yv2huvp1/report-of-2018-science-europe-symposium-on-
interdisciplinarity.pdf  
195 Frodeman, R. (2010). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press 
196 Leahey, E., Beckman, C.M. & Stanko, T.L. (2017). Prominent but less productive: The impact of 
interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105-139. 
197 European Commission (2017) FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-
Curie actions (MSCA). Retrieved from 
https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/msca_interim_eval_summary.pdf 

150 

 
 
                                                 
 
SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE SWITCHED TO ANOTHER (SUB)FIELD DURING THEIR 
ACADEMIC CAREER 

(of all EU28 researchers) 

2019 (n=8,540) 

18.9% 

R2: 29.5% 

R3: 33.6% 

R4: 40.9% 

R1: 15.2% 

R2: 20.1% 

R3: 17.4% 

R4: 21.7% 

M: 34.4% 

F: 19.7% 

M: 18.4% 

ENG: 36.8% 

MED: 32.5% 

AGR: 34.2% 

SOC: 37.2% 

HUM: 28.7% 

NAT: 17.8% 

ENG: 20.7% 

MED: 16.7% 

AGR: 16.6% 

SOC: 22.2% 

HUM: 17.1% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Note: Based on question 12: “Did you switch to another (sub)field of research during your academic career?” 

Based  on  the  question  whether  or  not  the  researcher  switched  to  another  (sub)field  of 
research during his or her academic career, 19% of all researchers indicate that they had. 
In 2016, this percentage was significantly higher (34%)198.  

The  question  is  not  limited  to  moves  between  the  six  main  fields  of  science  (Natural 
Sciences;  Engineering  and  Technology;  Medical  and  health  sciences;  Agricultural  and 
veterinary sciences; Social Sciences; Humanities and the Arts), but also allows respondents 
to think about moves between subfields, and the extent to which such a move between 
subfields  was  an  interdisciplinary  move.  Only  small  differences  are  apparent  between 
genders and fields. Differences can, however, be observed between countries, with shares 
ranging from 13% to 32%.  

Furthermore,  interdisciplinary  mobility  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  effect  on  both 
recruitment  and  career  progression,  according  to  75%  and  76%  of  researchers, 
respectively.  This  opinion  is  not  dependent  on  the  respondent  having  been  involved  in 
interdisciplinary mobility him/herself. 

The  overall  figure  is  similar  in  the  Global  survey:  both  in  2017  and  2020,  33%  of 
researchers  working  outside  the  EU  stated  that  they  had  switched  to  another  (sub)field 
during their research careers. 

198 This difference may be (partly) related to a small change in the questionnaire for MORE4 
compared with MORE3. In MORE3, researchers are first asked about their interdisciplinary 
collaboration, and are thus made aware of the reasoning in the framework of the FOS-classification 
before they are asked about interdisciplinary moves. This introductory question was removed from 
the MORE4 questionnaire for reasons of simplification. It is possible that this changed the 
perspective of the researchers with regard to this remaining question on interdisciplinary moves. 

151 

 
                                                 
 
Table 12: Share of researchers who have switched to another (sub)field during 
their academic career, by country 

COUNTRY 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

SHARE THAT 
SWITCHED TO 
ANOTHER FIELD 

22.8% 

14.1% 

27.4% 

27.4% 

22.5% 

20.2% 

31.6% 

16.7% 

24.7% 

13.3% 

15.6% 

24.0% 

25.0% 

24.4% 

25.8% 

16.3% 

COUNTRY 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

SHARE THAT 
SWITCHED TO 
ANOTHER FIELD 

30.0% 

26.5% 

21.3% 

26.1% 

21.4% 

25.4% 

23.9% 

18.7% 

21.2% 

18.3% 

15.9% 

24.9% 

14.8% 

20.9% 

18.4% 

18.9% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes: Based on question 12: “Did you switch to another (sub)field of research during your academic career?” 
(n=9,321) 

11.1.2. 

Interdisciplinary collaboration 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE COLLABORATED WITH, OR WORKED IN, MORE THAN ONE 
FIELD IN THEIR CURRENT POSITION  

(of all researchers) 

EU28 total 

By career stage 

By FOS 

2016 (n=9,412) 

73.5% 

2019 (n=8,540) 

79.5% 

R1: 66.2% 

R2: 73.7% 

R3: 73.2% 

R4: 77.5% 

R1: 74.2% 

R2: 84.9% 

R3: 78.3% 

R4: 80.6% 

NAT: 74.4% 

ENG: 75.5% 

MED: 76.2% 

AGR: 84.7% 

SOC: 67.7% 

HUM: 71.6% 

NAT: 78.6% 

ENG: 80.6% 

MED: 83.4% 

AGR: 85.0% 

SOC: 76.9% 

HUM: 76.9% 

By gender 

F: 74.0% 

M: 73.2% 

F: 80.1% 

M: 79.1% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Note: Based on question 82: “Please indicate with whom you collaborate in your research” 

Almost  80%  of  researchers  have  collaborated  with  other  fields  (+6  percentage  points 
compared with 2016). This type of collaboration was higher among those who report having 
worked in another (sub)field in MORE3 (interdisciplinary mobility), but this is no longer the 
case in MORE4.  

The  MORE3  Global  survey  investigated  patterns  of  interdisciplinary  collaboration  among 
researchers  working  outside  Europe.  There  are  indications  that  European  researchers 
working  outside  Europe  have  lower  levels  of  interdisciplinary  collaboration  than  those 
working in Europe (63% versus 80% respectively). 

152 

 
 
Table 13 shows the shares of researchers who engage in different types of interdisciplinary 
collaboration in each country: with researchers in the same institute, in other institutes, 
and in the non-academic sector.  

-  Generally  speaking,  collaboration  with  researchers  working  in  academic 
institutions is much higher than that with researchers in the non-academic sector 
(68% in the same institute and 63% in other universities or research institutes, 
versus 26% in the non-academic sector). There has also been a small decrease 
in the level of interdisciplinary collaboration with the non-academic sector, which 
fell from 31% in 2016 to 26% in 2019. 

-  At  country  level,  large  differences  can  be  observed  between  countries  when 
comparing the shares of researchers engaging in interdisciplinary collaboration 
within  academia  (i.e.  with  researchers  in  the  same  institute  or  in  other 
institutes): from 45% in Greece up to 84% in Romania  for collaborations with 
researchers  in  another  discipline  within  the  same  institute;  and  from  37%  in 
Luxembourg up to 80% in Romania for collaborations with researchers in another 
discipline and from another institute. 

-  Differences  are  smaller  between  countries  when  it  comes  to  interdisciplinary 
research  with  researchers  working  in  the  non-academic  sector,  ranging  from 
11% in Slovakia to 40% in Romania. 

Differences  can  also  be  observed  between  research  fields,  with  the  highest  shares  of 
interdisciplinary collaboration  occurring in Agricultural Sciences (85%) and the lowest in 
Social  Sciences  and  Humanities  (77%).  This  pattern  is  consistent  with  the  observations 
made in MORE3. 

153 

 
Table 13: Types of interdisciplinary collaboration, by country 

COUNTRY 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Switzerland 

The Netherlands 

United Kingdom 

EU28 

RESEARCHERS IN 
ANOTHER DISCIPLINE 
BUT WITHIN THE 
SAME INSTITUTE 

RESEARCHERS IN 
ANOTHER DISCIPLINE 
AND WORKING AT 
OTHER INSTITUTES 

RESEARCHERS IN 
ANOTHER DISCIPLINE 
AND WORKING IN THE 
NON-ACADEMIC 
SECTOR 

82.1% 

73.5% 

67.2% 

55.6% 

57.7% 

64.6% 

51.5% 

68.4% 

69.2% 

63.4% 

76.8% 

45.0% 

60.3% 

61.8% 

64.2% 

78.0% 

67.2% 

65.3% 

69.6% 

51.8% 

56.5% 

59.7% 

63.9% 

84.1% 

63.2% 

69.7% 

68.8% 

55.0% 

77.7% 

56.6% 

66.5% 

67.7% 

72.4% 

54.7% 

60.0% 

58.8% 

53.5% 

59.5% 

68.3% 

65.8% 

65.6% 

54.7% 

64.1% 

45.6% 

48.8% 

58.6% 

62.4% 

72.8% 

72.7% 

57.3% 

36.8% 

49.1% 

52.8% 

67.3% 

58.1% 

79.7% 

51.2% 

70.5% 

61.1% 

56.1% 

37.3% 

62.3% 

65.7% 

62.9% 

36.6% 

26.1% 

25.7% 

20.5% 

26.3% 

22.7% 

30.6% 

16.9% 

24.9% 

26.0% 

18.9% 

19.3% 

20.0% 

34.9% 

33.9% 

36.1% 

21.1% 

16.6% 

11.7% 

22.9% 

17.8% 

18.9% 

21.3% 

39.8% 

11.3% 

17.2% 

17.2% 

21.8% 

17.9% 

16.3% 

34.7% 

25.6% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes:  

-  Multiple collaboration types per respondent are possible. 
- 

Based on question 82 “Please indicate with whom you collaborate in your research” (n=9,321) 

11.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

Although  an  interdisciplinary  approach  is  considered  to  be  an  important  mechanism  for 
addressing complex societal challenges and fostering academic excellence and innovation 
(see above), interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration are mentioned less explicitly in the 
previous ERA priorities. However, in the Commission Staff Working Document to support 
the  new  ERA  Communication  of  30  September  2020,  mention  is  made  of  the  need  to 
strengthen  attention 
interdisciplinarity:  “Although 
interdisciplinarity may be well suited to addressing complex ethical and societal challenges 
while fostering academic excellence and innovation, the development of policies pursuing 

the  potential  benefits  of 

to 

154 

 
 
interdisciplinary careers is hampered by the absence of a clear-cut definition and promotion 
of greater awareness of interdisciplinarity and its benefits.”199 

Interdisciplinarity  is  also  referred  to  –  and  positively  regarded  -  in  some  of  the  most 
important EU research programmes funded within the Horizon 2020/Europe programmes, 
such as the ERC grants and MSCA grants (see below).  

At  doctoral  level,  the  Principles  of  Innovative  Doctoral  Training  also  explicitly  refer  to 
‘Interdisciplinary  Research  Options’.  According  to  this  idea,  doctoral  training  “must  be 
embedded  in  an  open  research  environment  and  culture  to  ensure  that  any  appropriate 
opportunities  for  cross-fertilisation  between  disciplines  can  foster  the  necessary  breadth 
and interdisciplinary approach”.  

Interdisciplinary mobility has been associated with the strengthening of certain skills that 
are becoming increasingly important. Examples of these skills are those  that relate to a 
researcher’s capacity to effectively communicate beyond the frontiers of their own field, as 
well  as  having  an  entrepreneurial  mindset,  and  a  greater  capacity  to  adapt  to  changing 
environments200.  The  need  to  broaden  researchers’  skill  base  and  provide  them  with 
interdisciplinary and transferable skills is, for example, confirmed in the MSCA Innovative 
Training Networks (ITN) and doctoral programmes in COFUND201.  

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
interdisciplinary mobility? 

In MORE4 EU HE survey202, 19% of researchers working in the EU report having switched 
to  another  field  of  science  or  discipline  in  the  past.  The  share  of  researchers  who  have 
collaborated with researchers working in another disciplines is 80% (+6 percentage points 
compared with 2016). The survey also enables us to explore the differences between those 
researchers who have worked in projects funded by an MSCA or ERC grant203 at some point 
during their research career, and the rest of the population of researchers.  

Although  these  figures  should  be  approached  with  caution,  since  the  survey  was  not 
designed to offer representative data on these groups, some interesting patterns emerge. 
Those researchers who have worked in a project developed under an MSCA or ERC grant 
display  higher  shares  of  interdisciplinary  mobility  (27%  and  31%)  than  the  general 
population of researchers (19%). The MORE4 EU HE survey was not designed to produce 
representative figures for those researchers who have received these grants in the past, 

199 Brussels, 30.9.2020 SWD(2020) 214 final, COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT, A new 
ERA for Research and Innovation {COM(2020) 628 final} 
200 More information on skills and training is provided in Section 5. 
201 European Commission (2017) FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-
Curie actions (MSCA). Retrieved from 
https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/msca_interim_eval_summary.pdf 
202 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
203 The survey did not include any questions on when these projects were carried out nor on 
whether the respondents were the principal investigators (in the case of ERC) or unique 
beneficiaries (in the case or MSCA) of the grants. On the basis of these data it is only possible to 
refer to those who have worked in a project funded by a MSCA or an ERC grant. 

155 

 
                                                 
 
or have worked on projects funded by these schemes. However, the differences found in 
the analysis suggest that further research could shed light on the effects of these grants 
on interdisciplinary mobility. 

Furthermore,  interdisciplinary  mobility  is  generally  perceived  as  a  positive  factor  for 
recruitment (75%) and for career progression (76%)  – much more so than intersectoral 
mobility (see Section 12). These figures indicate that researchers tend to have a positive 
view  of  this  type  of  mobility,  in  spite  of  the  debates  over  the  caveats  applied  to 
interdisciplinarity  –  e.g.  the  difficulties  in  getting  articles  based  on  interdisciplinary 
approaches accepted and published by leading academic journals; limitations in the peer-
review  process  and  scientific  standards204.  Researchers  working  outside  Europe  have  a 
slightly less positive opinion on the effects of this type of mobility: only 67% and 70% of 
the  researchers  think  that  interdisciplinary  mobility  has  a  positive  effect  on  recruitment 
and on career progression, respectively. However, researchers working outside the EU tend 
to  attribute  somewhat  less  positive  effects  to  several  types  of  factors  (not  just 
interdisciplinary mobility). 

In contrast with the results of the MORE3 survey, the MORE4 survey findings do not show 
that the perceived effect of interdisciplinary mobility on recruitment and career progression 
depends on whether researchers have previously worked in other disciplines (i.e. whether 
they themselves had been interdisciplinary-mobile). 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

The overarching objectives defined in the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme explicitly 
address the need to foster interdisciplinary research. It will continue to be important in the 
mission-oriented policy approach of Horizon Europe. As such, some of the most well-known 
researchers  support 
the  European  Commission 
granting  programmes  of 
interdisciplinarity.  For  instance,  ERC  grants  focus  on  an  investigator-driven  system 
designed to offer  greater  flexibility to  researchers pursuing  research in ground-breaking 
areas in which borders between disciplines have become increasingly blurred.  

for 

The MSCA encourage international, intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility. The 2017 
evaluation shows that interdisciplinary research is very important in the programme205: 

-  An  estimated  30%  of  MSCA  Individual  Fellowship  (IF)  proposals  include 

interdisciplinary research.  

-  One in four MSCA fellows moves to a new field of research as part of their first 
employment after their fellowship, and more than half of them believe that this 
is to a (very) great extent the result of participating in MSCA.  

-  The share of fellows who move to a new field of research after the end of their 
fellowship is particularly high in Innovative Training Networks (ITN; 27%) and 

204 Allmendinger, J. (2015). Quests for interdisciplinarity: A challenge for the ERA and HORIZON 
2020. Policy Brief by the Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Experts (RISE). Directorate-
General for Research and Innovation. Research, Innovation, and Science Policy Experts High Level 
Group. 
205 European Commission (2017) FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-
Curie actions (MSCA). Retrieved from 
https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/msca_interim_eval_summary.pdf 

156 

 
                                                 
 
the  Research  and  Innovation  Staff  Exchange  (RISE;  39%  of  those  changing 
employers). 

The  2017  evaluation  also  recommended  that  interdisciplinary  research  within  the  MSCA 
should  be  further  encouraged,  e.g.  via  the  increased  flexibility  of  calls  and  researcher 
positions as well as recognising that interdisciplinary researchers may have profiles that 
differ from the standard track record of other excellent researchers. 

Moreover, the results of the MORE4 EU HE survey indicate that the share of researchers 
who  have  been  interdisciplinary-mobile  is  higher  among  those  who  have  worked  on 
projects  funded  by  an  ERC  (31%)  or  MSCA  (27%)  grant,  compared  with  the  general 
population  of  researchers  (19%).  Even  though  this  type  of  mobility  is  not  explicitly 
envisaged in the objectives of these grant schemes, these higher shares seem to point to 
the  existence  of  relationships  between  the  grants  and  mobility  between  disciplines  that 
warrant further and more targeted research in future. 

157 

 
 
12.  INTERSECTORAL MOBILITY 

Source: Based on MORE3 EU HE report (Section 8.3) 

Intersectoral mobility is strongly related to what has been called the “European Paradox”; 
that is,  the  difficulties  faced  in  Europe  “to  sufficiently  turn  research  results into  globally 
competitive products”206. The insufficient number of researchers working in industry has 
been indicated as one of the reasons behind this paradox, and as a factor that may hinder 
European  economic  development  and  innovation207.  Closing  the  gap  between  academia 
and  the  business  sector  is  often  perceived  as  a  way  to  address  societal  challenges  and 
accelerate transitions such as the green and digital transformation, while guaranteeing the 

206 European Commission (2006), Mobility of Researchers between Academia and Industry. 12 
Practical Recommendations. Retrieved from 
http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/mobility_of_researchers_light.pdf    
207 Vandevelde, K. (2014). Intersectoral Mobility. Report from the 2014 ERAC mutual learning 
workshop on Human Resources and Mobility. 

158 

 
 
                                                 
 
future  competitiveness  and  growth  of  the  European  economy  and  strengthening  its 
resilience, including in the context of the European Recovery Plan.  

In  this  context,  one  of  the  objectives  of  the  European  Research  Area  (ERA)  has  always 
been the consolidation of a critical mass of researchers that would be sufficiently large to 
be  able  to  develop  the  R&D  that  Europe  needs  to  foster  its  competitiveness  at  a  global 
level.  Most  researchers  who  are  trained  in  HEIs  will  eventually  pursue  careers  outside 
academia. Intersectoral mobility and exchanges are key to enhancing the employability of 
researchers in multiple settings. In line with this observation, the Council Conclusions on 
'Measures to support early stage researchers, raise the attractiveness of scientific careers 
and  foster  investment  in  human  potential  in  research  and  development'208  stress  the 
importance of early-stage researchers’ skills and competences being suited to an evolving 
research environment, including industry, and to fuelling the knowledge-based economy.  

The new ERA Communication209 confirms the importance of translating R&I results into the 
economy  to  ensure  the  market  uptake  of  research  output  and  Europe’s  competitive 
leadership in technology. In doing so, it also seeks to further encourage and acknowledge 
intersectoral cooperation and multiple career paths for researchers. 

12.1.  Key findings 

12.1.1. 

Intersectoral mobility 

SHARE OF RESEARCHERS WITH INTERSECTORAL POST-PHD DEGREE MOBILITY 

(Of all R2, R3 and R4 researchers in the EU28) 

EU28 total 

2012 
(n=7,131) 

30.0% 

By (current) 
career stage 

R2: 27.3% 

R3: 28.9% 

R4: 33.3% 

2016 
(n=8,073) 

24.8% 

2019 
(n=7,653) 

23.8% 

R2: 22.1% 

R3: 24.5% 

R4: 26.7% 

R2: 17.4% 

R3: 23.4% 

R4: 27.4% 

By FOS 

By gender 

NAT: 28.6% 

F: 28.1% 

ENG: 34.0% 

M: 31.0% 

MED: 26.6% 

AGR: 44.9% 

SOC: 33.0% 

HUM: 26.3% 

NAT: 22.8% 

F: 23.5% 

ENG: 29.9% 

M: 25.4% 

MED: 18.5% 

AGR: 33.2% 

SOC: 29.6% 

HUM:19.4% 

NAT: 21.4% 

F: 22.6% 

ENG: 26.8% 

M: 24.5% 

MED: 18.5% 

AGR: 27.0% 

SOC: 31.6% 

HUM:18.2% 

By destination 
sector 

Public 
sector:15.5% 

Private sector: 
17.8%210 

Public 
sector:12.7% 

Private sector: 
15.7% 

Public 
sector:12.4% 

Private sector: 
14.7% 

208 Permanent Representatives Committee (2016). Draft Council conclusions on 'Measures to 
support early stage researchers, raise the attractiveness of scientific careers and foster investment 
in human potential in research and development' (2016) 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24214/st14301en16.pdf  
209 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 
210 The share of private sector mobility includes the private not-for-profit sector. 

159 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019),  MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Note: Based on question 86: “Have you ever worked as a researcher (excluding PhD) in the non-
university/higher education sector (e.g. companies, NGOs, charities, non-university research institutes, 
governmental bodies/agencies)?” 

Stock of researchers working in the private sector 

Based  on  Eurostat  data211,  the  MORE4  Indicators  report  on  researchers212  reveals  that 
around half of EU researchers worked in the private sector in 2017 (not including not-for-
profit organisations). This is a small increase compared with 2014 (+3pp). However, there 
is  considerable  variation  between  EU  countries:  at  72%,  the  share  of  private  sector 
researchers  is  greatest  in  Sweden,  while  it  is  lowest  in  Latvia,  at  only  19%.  Austria, 
Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovenia also showed shares 
above 60% in 2017. Most countries with high shares of researchers in the private sector 
already  had  high  shares  in  2014,  and  in  several  cases  as  far  back  as  2009.  The  lowest 
overall numbers are to be found in Latvia (19%), Croatia (21%) and Romania (25%).  

In  the  period  2014-2017,  the  largest  increases  in  the  shares  of  the  total  number  of 
researchers who work in the private sector were in Bulgaria (+16pp), Poland (+15pp) and 
Greece  (+14pp).  The  largest  decreases  were  observed  in  Ireland  (-11pp),  Malta  and 
Romania (-3pp each).  

In terms of gender, around one-third (30%) of all female researchers work in the private 
sector. In 2017, the countries in which at least 50% of female researchers were employed 
in the private sector were Denmark (51%), Malta (52%) and Sweden (51%). Shares below 
20%  can  be  found  in  Slovakia  (8%),  Greece  (11%),  Latvia  (15%),  Lithuania  (17%), 
Luxembourg (17%) and Cyprus (18%). 

Stock of researchers currently working in the HE sector who have worked in other sectors 

Of those researchers currently working in the HE sector, almost one in four have previously 
worked in non-academic sectors at some point during their career (24%). Similar to 2016, 
in 2019 12% of all R2 to R4 researchers indicated that they had been intersectorally-mobile 
to the public sector,  while 15% went to the private  sector. Of these,  6% had  moved to 
large firms, 3% to SMEs or start-ups, and another 7% indicated that they had worked in 
private not-for-profit organisations. 

Figure 21 shows significant variation between countries. The least intersectorally-mobile 
countries  are  Portugal  (18%),  Belgium  (20%)  and  Italy  (20%),  closely  followed  by 
Germany  (20%).  The  most  mobile  countries  are  Latvia  (37%),  Switzerland  (36%)  and 
Bulgaria (33%). In most countries, the indicator has decreased in comparison to 2014.  

Researchers  are  most  inclined  to  engage  in  intersectoral  mobility  when  they  reach  the 
established stage of their careers (R3). In 2016, later career stage researchers were more 
inclined to take a position in government organisations, whereas R2 researchers tended to 

211 Based on Eurostat, Total R&D personnel (researchers in FTE) by sectors of performance, 
occupation and sex (rd_p_persocc, ‘Business enterprise sector’/ rd_p_persocc, ‘All sectors’). See 
indicator 1.6 in the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 
212 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Researcher Indicators report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

160 

 
                                                 
 
move to private industry (in particular to SMEs and start-ups), and R3 researchers were 
more likely to move to the not-for-profit sector. In 2019, the pattern has changed slightly, 
with both R2 and R3 researchers now moving more often to large firms and R4 researchers 
moving more often to SMEs or start-ups. These observations suggest that there is some 
volatility in these data on intersectoral mobility. Longer time series will be able to confirm 
if there are any trends in this indicator. 

Figure 21: Evolution of intersectoral mobility, by country (2016-2019) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016)  
Notes: 

- 

- 

Only for R2, R3 and R4 researchers. 

Based on question 86: “Have you ever worked as a researcher (excluding PhD) in the non-

university/higher education sector (e.g. companies, NGOs, charities, non-university research institutes, 

governmental bodies/agencies)?” (2019: n=8,300; 2016: n=8,073) 

As in 2017, the overall result in the 2020 MORE4 Global Survey for researchers currently 
working outside the EU – 20% – is similar to that found within the EU (24%), but the share 
is lower for EU  researchers currently working outside the EU than for other groups (i.e. 
non-EU researchers). Differences also exist between countries (i.e. the country in which 
the researcher is currently employed), with shares ranging between 31% in Argentina to 
14% in the US. 

Motives 

The most frequently mentioned motives for mobility to each destination sector differ little 
between 2016 and 2019, as can be seen in Table 14. Networking is still the most important 
motive for working outside academia, regardless of the destination sector. Other motives 
depend more on the destination sector, e.g. ‘contribution to society’ is more common as a 
motive  for  researchers  moving  from  academia  to  the  government  and  not-for-profit 

161 

 
 
sectors, whereas ‘gaining first-hand experience of industry’, ‘improved remuneration’, and 
‘bringing  research  to  the  market’  are  more  common  factors  driving  the  mobility  of 
researchers from academia to private industry. 

Table  14:  Three  most  frequently  cited  motives  for  intersectoral  mobility,  by 
destination sector (EU28) 

2016 (N=1,333) 

Public sector or government organisation  Network (73.1%) 

Private, not for profit sector 

Contribution to society (71.9%) 

Contribution to society (72.6%) 

Career progression (64.3%) 

Network (71.7%) 

Research autonomy (69.9%) 

Private sector: large companies 

Gaining first-hand experience of industry (72%) 

Remuneration (66.3%) 

Career progression (64.5%) 

Private sector: SMEs and start-ups 

Gaining first-hand experience of industry (77.71%) 

Network (73%)  

Bringing research to the market (59.7%) 

2019 (n=1,084) 

Public sector or government organisation  Contribution to society (86.0%) 

Private, not for profit sector 

Network (81.4%) 

Network (84.3%) 

Research autonomy (74%) 

Private sector: large companies 

Gaining first-hand experience of industry (76.2%) 

Contribution to society (79.8%) 

Gaining first-hand experience of industry (72.3%) 

Career progression (73.2%) 

Access to research facilities and equipment (72.8%) 

Private sector: SMEs and start-ups 

Renumeration (83.5%)  

Network (83.4%)  

Bringing research to the market (82.1%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: 

-  Only R2, R3, R4 researchers who have undertaken an intersectoral move in the last ten years 

- 

Based on question 92: “Which of the following factors were important in your decision to undertake 

this move?” 

Effects on recruitment and career progression 

65% of researchers consider that (1) mobility to the private sector, (2) mobility to the non-
profit, public or government sector, or (3) both, are positive for recruitment. This positive 
perception  is  significantly  higher  among  those  with  experience  in  a  large  private  firm 
(76%), but lower among those with experience in an SME or startup (54%).  

67%  regarded  intersectoral  mobility  as  having  had  a  positive  effect  on  their  career 
progression,  again  with  a  higher  share  among  those  who  had  experienced  mobility  to  a 
large private firm (77%) and a lower share among those researchers who had experienced 
mobility to an SME or startup (55%), or to a private not-for-profit organisation (59%). 

Working inside the HE sector is considered better (than outside the HE sector) in terms of 
opportunities to work with leading scientists, social security, Open Science approaches, job 
security, research autonomy and intellectual challenge. On the other hand, working outside 

162 

 
the  HE  sector  is  considered  better  (than  inside  the  HE  sector)  for  (among  others) 
remuneration,  contribution  to  society,  the  availability  of  research  funding,  a  dynamic 
working environment, and future career perspectives. 

Less  positive  results  are  found  among  researchers  working  outside  Europe:  51%  of 
researchers consider that intersectoral mobility is a positive factor for recruitment; 47% 
for  career  progression.  Among  those  researchers  who  had  been  intersectorally  mobile, 
results were very similar: 51% reported it as being positive for recruitment, 46% for career 
progression. The overall percentage of intersectorally mobile researchers working outside 
Europe who consider mobility a positive factor has increased since 2017, but remains lower 
than for researchers working in Europe. 

12.1.2. 

Intersectoral collaboration 

Table 15: Collaboration with academic researchers outside their own institution, 
or with non-academic researchers. 

INTERSECTORAL COLLABORATION 213 

2016 (n=9,412) 

EU28 total 

Academic 

(Outside own 
institution) 

Non-academic 

(Intersectoral 
collaboration) 

80.2% 

35.5% 

By (current) 
career stage 

R1: 66.8% 

R2: 71.3% 

R3: 81.2% 

R4: 91.0% 

R1: 24.6% 

R2: 25.6% 

R3: 35.3% 

R4: 47.3% 

By FOS 

By gender 

F: 78.6% 

M: 81.2% 

F: 30.5% 

M: 38.7% 

NAT: 85.9% 

ENG: 80.8% 

MED: 73.9% 

AGR: 80.0% 

SOC: 79.5% 

HUM: 81.0% 

NAT: 41.0% 

ENG: 44.5% 

MED: 34.5% 

AGR: 43.0% 

SOC: 29.2% 

HUM: 26.4% 

213 The MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) included a similar question on collaboration, but with fewer 
categories of collaboration partners. The data are not sufficiently comparable to include the MORE2 
results as a basis for comparison here. 

163 

 
                                                 
 
2019 (n=8,540) 

EU28 total 

Academic 

(Outside own 
institute) 

Non-academic 

(Intersectoral 
collaboration) 

77.4% 

32.2% 

By (current) 
career stage 

R1: 57.7% 

R2: 56.3% 

R3: 82.5% 

R4: 86.0% 

R1: 19.6% 

R2: 18.2% 

R3: 34.0% 

R4: 40.0% 

By FOS 

By gender 

F: 76.9% 

M: 77.7% 

F: 30.5% 

M: 33.2% 

NAT: 80.7% 

ENG: 72.8% 

MED: 75.1% 

AGR: 75.6% 

SOC: 76.3% 

HUM: 83.5% 

NAT: 34.0% 

ENG: 35.5% 

MED: 32.6% 

AGR: 41.8% 

SOC: 29.9% 

HUM: 25.5% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Note: Based on question 82: “Please indicate with whom you collaborate in your research (e.g. joint projects, 
joint papers, etc.)” 

32% of researchers working in HEIs collaborate with researchers in non-academic sectors. 
As in 2016, this is more common in 2019 among later career stages (40% and 34% in R4 
and  R3  versus  less  than  20%  in  R1  and  R2)  and  less  common  in  SSH  fields  (26%  in 
Humanities and 30% in Social Sciences versus more than 40% in Agricultural Sciences).  

In  2016,  a  gender  difference  of  8  percentage  points  was  observed  in  relation  to  non-
academic collaboration. This has decreased to 3pp in 2019, mainly due to a decrease in 
the  share  of  male  researchers  engaging  in  this  type  of  collaboration.  For  academic 
collaboration, no gender difference is observed (78% of male researchers versus 77% of 
female researchers).  

In  line  with  the  2016  results,  we  see  that  intersectoral  mobility  and  intersectoral 
collaboration go hand in hand. The  effect is larger  for non-academic collaboration (30% 
among  non-intersectorally  mobile  researchers  versus  47%  among  intersectorally  mobile 
researchers) than for academic collaboration (78% versus 84%). The survey also included 
an explicit question on the extent to which intersectoral collaboration was the result of a 
previous mobility experience. 32% of researchers in the group that collaborated with non-
academic partners stated that collaboration with non-academic partners is the result of a 
previous mobility experience (versus 30% in 2016).  For EU researchers working outside 
the EU, the effect is larger: more than 70% indicate that intersectoral collaboration results 
from a previous intersectoral mobility experience. 

12.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

ERA  Priority  5  –  optimal  circulation  and  transfer  of  scientific  knowledge  –  explicitly 
recognised the mobility of researchers between the private and the public sectors as one 
of the most efficient ways to achieve this aim.  

Together with the professionalisation of intellectual property management, the fostering of 
collaborative research between HEIs and private research organisations, and the training 
of students in entrepreneurship and in business and industry culture, intersectoral mobility 
has positive consequences for society, researchers and the institutions that employ them. 

164 

 
Under the heading of deepening the ERA, the new ERA Communication (2020) 214 confirms 
that  “incentivising  researchers  to  pursue  a  career  outside  academia  through  enhanced 
inter-sectoral  circulation  schemes  involving  industry  can  help  improve  researchers’ 
employability and boost the permeability of talents across Europe’s economy and society”.  

- 

First, this type of mobility is meant to foster the match between research results 
and  market  needs,  hence  increasing  the  application  potential  of  (publicly) 
funded research.  

-  Second, it helps researchers acquire a broader set of skills – entrepreneurship, 
management of IPR, etc. - that can better equip them for the challenges of the 
current and future labour markets.  

-  Third, the companies and institutions that employ intersectoral researchers can 
benefit  from  access  to  new  collaborations  and  knowledge  that  can  help 
them be more efficient and innovative.  

What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
intersectoral mobility? 

Intersectoral  mobility  has  received  increased  EU  policy  attention  in  recent  years.  Data 
collected in the framework of the MORE projects provide a good opportunity to shed light 
on the evolution of the situation across EU countries over time. Note that Section 5 on PhD 
training  and  Section  6  on  careers  have  also  looked  at  intersectoral  mobility  from  their 
specific  angles  (integrating  intersectoral  mobility  into  PhD  training,  and  diversifying 
research careers through intersectoral mobility). 

One  observation  from  the  MORE4  Indicators  report  on  researchers215  is  that,  in 
comparative terms, the EU lags behind the US, China, Japan and South Korea with respect 
to the number of researchers employed in the private sector (based on Eurostat data216). 
As  this  type  of  indicator  is  not  expected  to  fluctuate  or  evolve  strongly,  it  needs  to  be 
monitored in the longer run to see the effect of policy actions. It is also important to note 
that large differences exist within the EU in relation to the economic structure and research 
intensity  of  different  Member  States.  EU  policy  and  funding  initiatives  to  promote 
exchanges with, or attractive career paths in, industry research settings will thus need to 
take  this  diversity  in  national  contexts  into  account,  and  allow  for  sufficiently  flexible 
approaches.  

The  MORE  EU  HE  data  showed  a  decrease  between  2012  and  2016  in  the  share  of 
researchers who have had a previous intersectoral mobility experience, from 30% in 2012 
to 25% in 2016. In 2019, the share remained at 24%. The drop between 2012 and 2016 
was mainly due to a decrease in mobility towards the public sector, which can be partially 
explained in the context of budgetary cuts in the public sector that have affected several 
EU countries during that timeframe. Around one-third of researchers have been involved 
in intersectoral collaboration (similar to 2016). 

214 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 
215 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Researcher Indicators report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
216 Based on Eurostat, Total R&D personnel (researchers) by sectors of performance, occupation 
and sex (rd_p_persocc). See indicator 1.6 in the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers. 

165 

 
                                                 
 
The MORE data also provide interesting insights into the reasons why these figures remain 
relatively low. There is an apparent paradox: on the one hand, researchers working in the 
higher education sector tend to perceive that remuneration outside academia is better than 
inside academia. On the other hand, the share of researchers who have worked in another 
sector  remains  fairly  low  (this  is  expected  though,  given  the  fact  that  the  survey  only 
targets researchers who currently work in HEI). The analysis of the data point to several 
reasons behind this paradox: 

- 

Incentives  to  work  outside  academia  differ  from  incentives  to  work  within 
academia. Intersectoral mobility is considered a positive factor for recruitment 
and for career progression by six out of 10 researchers currently working in HEIs, 
but  those  with  this  type  of  experience  do  not  value  it  more  highly  than  those 
without  it.  On  average,  researchers  in  HEIs  hold  much  more  positive  views 
regarding the effects on their career progression of other types of mobility, such 
as international or interdisciplinary mobility (86% and 76%, respectively). The 
promotion  of  incentives  to  strengthen  the  recognition  of  intersectoral  mobility 
moves in recruitment processes, and in terms of incentives and rewards for their 
career progression, would probably make this type of move more attractive for 
researchers. Along similar lines, it has been pointed out that the efforts made to 
facilitate  a  return  to  academia  after  an  experience  in  the  private  sector  have 
been limited in most EU countries217.  

-  Training in skills that could be valorised most in an intersectoral move towards 
the private sector are still the exception rather than the norm. The percentage 
shares of R1 and R2 researchers who have received training in entrepreneurship, 
intellectual property rights (IPR) or negotiation skills during their PhD are smaller 
than those who have received training on typical research-based skills (research 
skills,  critical  thinking,  and  even  communication  skills)  (see  Section  5). 
Challenges  also  exist  in  relation  to  validating  skills  and  competences  gained 
through intersectoral researcher mobility. 

-  Aligning future policy developments which aim to fostering intersectoral mobility 
with researchers´ motivations, and providing incentives for this type of mobility 
to become more valued in academic career paths, might help to better reward 
researchers for undertaking an intersectoral mobility period and help bridge the 
gap  between  industry  and  academia  through  the  greater  incidence  of 
bidirectional  mobility.  In  this,  it  is  important  to  take  into  account  limitations 
related to differences in economic structures (cf. supra). 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

The  Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme  contains  several  objectives  related  to 
intersectoral  mobility  and  collaboration,  such  as  promoting  interdisciplinary  and  cross-
sectoral  research  and  innovation;  promoting  international  networks  for  excellent 
researchers and innovators; and facilitating the cross-border and cross-sector mobility of 
researchers218.  Horizon  Europe  is  expected  to  “continue  to  facilitate  cross-border 

217 Vandevelde, K. (2014) Intersectoral mobility. Report from the 2014 ERAC mutual learning 
workshop on Human Resources and Mobility. 
218 These are included in Article 14 of the Regulation No 1291/2013. 

166 

 
                                                 
 
collaboration between top scientists and innovators, allowing for trans-national and cross-
sector coordination between public and private R&I investment.”219 

Intersectoral collaboration – and, to a lesser extent, intersectoral mobility – are therefore 
present  in  many  Horizon  2020  sub-programmes  and  grant  schemes,  together  with 
excellent research and international and interdisciplinary research and mobility. This will 
be  continued  in  Horizon  Europe.  Several  EU  funding  instruments  explicitly  promote 
intersectoral mobility and collaboration. The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) stand 
out as one of the instruments that put a greater emphasis on this type of mobility. In the 
European  Commission’s  words,  it  aims  to  provide  “excellent  and  innovative  research 
training as well as attractive career and knowledge-exchange opportunities through cross-
border and cross-sector mobility of researchers to best prepare them to face current and 
future societal challenges.”220  

-  The  Innovative  Training  Networks  (ITN)  explicitly  mentions  the  importance  of 
the  meaningful  exposure  of  researchers  to  the  non-academic  sector  as  an 
important  factor  in  increasing  their  employability221.  ITNs  include  industrial 
doctorates  (in  which  non-academic  organisations  play  an  equal  role  to 
universities,  with  regard  to  the  researcher's  time  and  supervision),  and  joint 
doctoral degrees delivered by several universities.  

-  Research and Innovation Staff Exchange (RISE) supports intersectoral mobility 
through  the  funding  of  short-term  exchanges  of  R&I  staff  that  can  take  place 
between  academic,  industrial  and  commercial  organisations  throughout  the 
world222. It also emphasises the importance of developing their knowledge, skills 
and careers, as well as the importance of building links between organisations in 
different sectors. 

-  Also, in COFUND Fellowship programmes, applicants are encouraged to include 

elements of cross-sectoral mobility into their programmes223. 

There  is  evidence  that  the  MSCA  indeed  contribute  to  intersectoral  mobility  during  and 
after participation in the MSCA: 

- 

Interviews  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  a  study  on  the  impact  of  business 
participation in MSCA on researchers´ careers and job creation showed that the 

219 COM(2018) 435 final, based on an analysis in the impact assessment of the impacts Horizon 
Europe is expected to generate if the Programme is continued. 
220 European Commission. Excellent Science. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/excellent-science   
221 European Commission (2020). Funding tenders. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-
details/msca-itn-2020 ITNS  
222 European Commission (n.d.). Staff Exchange. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/actions/staff-exchange_en  
223 European Commission (2020). Co-funding of regional, national and international programmes. 
Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-
details/msca-cofund-2020  

167 

 
                                                 
 
programme had very positive effects on beneficiaries, through the acquisition of 
new knowledge and industry-relevant skills224.  

- 

-  The 2017 evaluation225 showed that there were over 6,500 planned secondments 
from academia to non-academia and over 4,300 from non-academia to academia 
in  RISE  during  the  period  2014-2016.  Moreover,  around  12,000  of  the 
approximately 27,000 fellows funded under the budget of the 2014-2016 MSCA 
calls are estimated to have experienced some form of cross-sectoral mobility out 
of or into an academic setting.  
In addition, based on a survey of MSCA fellows, this 2017 evaluation also found 
that the 11% of MSCA fellows who were mainly hosted in the academic sector 
during their fellowship, moved to the non-academic sector after the end of the 
fellowship.  38%  attributed  this  move  to  a  (very)  large  extent  to  MSCA 
participation. Cross-sectoral mobility after the end of the fellowship is particularly 
high under  ITN (19% of fellows moved to the  non-academic sector) and RISE 
(28% of those who leave their sending organisations move to the non-academic 
sector).  
ITN  fellows  also  perform  strongly  in  terms  of  cross-sectoral  collaboration  in 
research. Their share of academic-corporate cross-sector publications (4.3%) is 
significantly  higher  than  the  global  average  (2.6%),  and  also  higher  than  the 
cross-sector publication shares of the comparison group of researchers similar to 
ITN (3.8%). 

- 

The MORE4 EU HE survey226 does not allow us to establish causal links, but it sheds light 
on  the  extent  to  which  researchers  who  have  received  an  MSCA  grant  (or  worked  in  a 
project  funded  by  an  MSCA)  in  the  past  show  similar  shares  of  intersectoral  mobility 
compared  with  the  overall  population  of  researchers.  While  the  MORE3  EU  HE  survey 
showed that those who had been given a grant by an MSCA were on average 5 percentage 
points  more  likely  to  have  been  intersectorally-mobile  than  the  general  population  of 
researchers, the MORE4 survey shows that the level of intersectoral mobility does not differ 
between  former  and  current  MSCA  grantees  and  the  general  population  of  researchers 
(26% and 24%, respectively).   

The MORE4 EU HE survey offers different insights into the grants provided by the European 
Research Council (ERC). The ERC´s main objectives focus on fostering excellent research 
in Europe through a bottom-up approach. Intersectoral mobility is not an explicit objective 
of  these  grants.  However,  as  in  MORE3,  the  highest  shares  of  this  type  of  mobility  are 
found in the ERC group (30% in MORE4; 36% in MORE3). 

In addition to the confirmed role of the ERC and MSCA in the new policy framework for the 
new period (Horizon Europe and the policy goal of strengthening the ERA), the new ERA 

224  PPMI Group et al. (2017). Study of business participation and entrepreneurship in Marie 
Skłodowska-Curie actions (FP7 and Horizon 2020). Final report. Directorate-General for Education, 
Youth, Sport and Culture. European Commission. 
225 European Commission (2017) FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-
Curie actions (MSCA) 
https://www.ffg.at/sites/default/files/msca_interim_eval_summary.pdf 
226 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

168 

 
                                                 
 
Communication  (2020)227 also  aims  to  implement  a  new  ERA4You  initiative  to  reinforce 
intersectoral mobility and collaboration, and to involve the private sector more strongly in 
the  training  of  researchers.  Moreover,  this  initiative  will  include  a  dedicated  pillar  for 
‘widening countries’, to support researchers from these countries to  develop and access 
excellence, thus recognising the importance of addressing differing needs across the EU. 

The  importance  of  promoting  intersectoral  researcher  mobility  at  EU  level  cannot  be 
overestimated,  and  should  not  be  downplayed,  as  research  into  national  instruments 
and policy developments in this area concludes that attention to intersectoral mobility 
varies from country to country. According to one recent study228, the supply of dedicated 
intersectoral  mobility  schemes  across  the  EU  Member  States  is  uneven,  particularly  in 
Central and Eastern Europe. The focus in this region has instead been on “strengthening 
the framework conditions in which intersectoral mobility could be implemented in future 
i.e. through investment in strengthening the qualifications of young researchers, improving 
the R&I infrastructure, and measures to foster technology transfer and closer academic-
industry cooperation”.229 A number of developments in this direction can be identified: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

In  Finland230,  Finpro  and  Tekes  were  merged  into  Business  Finland.  Post-
reorganisation, this body is expected to serve as a ‘one-stop shop’ for customers. 
The major goal of the organisation is to strengthen links between industry and 
academia by prioritising projects that show elements of cooperation. 
In  2019,  the  Łukasiewicz  Research  Network231  was  established  in  Poland.  This 
network  brings  together  35  research  institutes  from  all  over  Poland,  many  of 
which  previously  operated  under  the  Ministry  of  Entrepreneurship  and 
Technology. It operates in line with the ‘Science is Business’ model, and offers 
dedicated solutions for business in the areas of Health, Sustainable Economy and 
Energy, Smart Mobility and Digital Transformation. 
In Austria, the government programme for 2020-2024 includes the expansion of 
knowledge  transfer  centres  by  anchoring  them  within  the  performance 
agreements with universities 2022-2024.232 
In  Spain233,  a  new  tool  for  the  recognition  of  non-academic  research  activity 
(“sexenio de transferencia”) has been developed and a new programme has been 
adopted, aimed at promoting applied research and public-private collaboration 
through technology centres (“Red Cervera”). 
In 2018, Portugal adopted the legal framework for higher education degrees and 
diplomas.  The  Decree-law  39/2018  clarifies  that  research  and  development 
activities that are part of a study cycle leading to a doctorate can be carried out 
in  any  knowledge  creation  environment,  including  companies,  technology 
interface centres and health care units with important R&D activity, among other 
scientific and technological institutions. 

227 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 
228 European Commission (2018). Study on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European 
Level. Final Report. Retrieved from 
https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/final_report_intersectoral_mobility.pdf  
229 Ibid. 
230 ERA Progress Report 2018, Country Snapshot: Finland. 
231 Lukasiewicz. Main Page. Retrieved from https://lukasiewicz.gov.pl/en/  
232 Austrian ERA Roadmap Final Report 2020. 
233 ERA Progress Report 2018, Country Snapshot: Spain. 

169 

 
                                                 
 
- 

In  2020,  Estonia  redefined  the  status  groups  of  PhD  students.  Under  the  new 
system234, PhD students will be grouped into: 

o 

o 

Junior researchers – PhD students at a university: the university pays the 
junior researcher a salary for the research. The workload at the university 
must  be  at  least  50%  or  20  hours  per  week.  In  addition,  the  doctoral 
student takes up employment elsewhere. 
Industrial  doctorates,  which  in  turn  can  take  two  forms:  (i)  the  PhD 
student works in a company or institution, but the studies and supervision 
are organised by the university. Doctoral studies make up at least 50% 
of the workload. State support is granted for industrial doctorates; (ii) the 
PhD student works at a university, but his / her studies are not financed 
by  the  state  –  the  financing  is  agreed  between  the  university  and  the 
institution. 

o  PhD students studying on the basis of an individual plan, without a junior 
researcher employment contract. In this case, PhD students retain their 
student status and do not receive a salary or a scholarship from the state. 
The duration of PhD studies combining intersectoral researcher mobility 
should not exceed twice the nominal time intended for a PhD, i.e. 8 years. 

The  same  study235  indicates  that,  compared  with  countries  in  which  such  cooperation  is 
still  nascent,  intersectoral  mobility  schemes  are  more  prevalent  in  countries  with  a 
longstanding  tradition  of  industry-academic  collaboration,  such  as  the  UK,  Ireland, 
Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Denmark,  Sweden  and  Norway.  This  insight  can  be  further 
corroborated  by  examples  of  instruments  and  schemes  mentioned  in  NAPs  and/or 
highlighted  in  the  ERA  Progress  Report  2018  as  contributing  to  the  creation  of  an  open 
labour market for researchers and improving access to, or the transfer of knowledge – they 
are indeed mainly implemented by countries experienced with similar schemes: 

- 

-  The  Austrian  Research  Promotion  Agency  (FFG)  operates  a  couple  of  national 
intersectoral mobility schemes: the Industrial PhD Programme236 targeting PhD 
students, and the Talents programme237, offering internships for students (Young 
Talents scheme) and female researchers (FEMtech scheme). 
In  Sweden,  intersectoral  mobility  is  supported  by  the  Swedish  Foundation  for 
Strategic Research (SSF) via the Strategic Mobility, Industry Doctoral Student, 
and  Research  Institute  Doctoral  Student  programmes.238  The  last  of  these 
programme was established in 2018 and instead of focusing on direct mobility 
between  industry  and  academia,  fosters  mobility  through  funding  PhD  or 
licentiate  candidates  at  research  institutes.  These  institutes  are  by  definition 

234 European Commission (2020). Estonia. National  Reforms in Higher Education. Retrieved from 
https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/national-reforms-higher-education-
20_en  
235 European Commission (2018). Study on Fostering Industrial Talents in Research at European 
Level. Final Report. Retrieved from 
https://cdn5.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/final_report_intersectoral_mobility.pdf 
236 Austrian Research Promotion Agency. Research partnerships – Industrial PhD. Retrieved at 
https://www.ffg.at/en/programm/forschungspartnerschaften  
237 Austrian Research Promotion Agency. Talents. Retrieved from https://www.ffg.at/en/talents  
238 Technopolis (2019). Analysis of Intersectoral Mobility. Retrieved from 
https://strategiska.se/app/uploads/ssf_intersectoral-mobility_final-report-191002.pdf 

170 

 
                                                 
 
promising environments for intersectoral networks, as a lot of the research being 
carried out there fill the gaps between academia and industry – or links the two 
sectors together. 
Industrial  PhD  schemes  are  also  supported  in  several  countries,  such  as 
Denmark239, Norway240, and the United Kingdom241. 

- 

-  The Volkswagen Foundation (VolkswagenStiftung), the largest private research 
funder  in  Germany,  has  recently  completed  its  Humanities,  Cultural  Studies, 
Social Sciences and Professional Practice in Graduate Education scheme242. The 
main aim of this scheme was to provide a one-off concentrated and paradigmatic 
stimulus  for  stronger  practical  orientation  in  doctoral  education  at  German 
universities,  particularly  in  the  fields  of  humanities  and  social  sciences.  The 
scheme  offered  support  for  the  establishment  of  small  graduate  research 
programmes  in  the  humanities  and  cultural  studies  (first  funding  line).  In 
addition,  in  the  second  funding  line,  university  graduate  schools  in  the 
humanities, cultural studies and the social sciences could apply for support for 
their  doctoral  students  to  embark  upon  internships  or  other  practice-based 
modules with a term of up to one year.   

A  selection  of  national  initiatives  promoting  intersectoral  mobility  has  also  been 
published  on  the  EURAXESS  website,  as  part  of  the  Academia-Business  engagement 
tool243. These examples, again, mainly come from countries with multiple examples of 
similar  instruments  being  implemented  in  the  past  or  still  being  supported  by  both 
research funding and research implementing organisations, as well as by other national 
actors. 

This  overview  corroborates  and  complements  the  findings  of  the  MORE  study,  which 
concluded  that  systematic  attention  to  key  incentives,  such  as  the  recognition  of 
intersectoral  mobility  as  a  valuable  experience  both  in  industry  and  academia,  is 
lacking.244  This  stems  from  insufficient  practical  experience  in  the  promotion  of 
dedicated intersectoral mobility in research across ERA countries, as well as difficulties 
in learning from such practices in countries where intersectoral mobility represents only 
a very small component of a larger R&D&I priority (often supported and implemented 
with  ESIF  support),  and  the  variety  of  approaches  and  prioritisation  of  measures 
included by countries in their national ERA Roadmaps. 

239 Innovation Fund Denmark. Industrial Researcher. Retrieved from 
https://innovationsfonden.dk/en/programmes/industrial-researcher  
240 The Research Council of Norway (2019) Industrial Ph.D. Scheme – Doctoral Projects in Industry. 
Retrieved from 
https://www.forskningsradet.no/en/call-for-proposals/2019/industrial-ph.d.-scheme--doctoral-
projects-in-industry/  
241 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Industrial Doctorate Centres. Retrieved 
from 
https://epsrc.ukri.org/skills/students/centres/pre2013/idd/  
242 VolkswagenStiftung (2020), Humanities, Cultural Studies, Social Sciences and Professional 
Practice in Graduate Education. Retrieved from 
https://www.volkswagenstiftung.de/en/funding/humanities-cultural-studies-social-sciences-and-
professional-practice-in-graduate-education 
243 Euraxess. Engagement activities. Retrieved from https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/career-
development/organisations/resources-and-tools/engagement-tool/activities  
244 European Commission (2017). MORE3 study. Retrieved from 
https://cdn1.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/final_report_2.pdf  

171 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
13.  ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA 

When knowledge is the principal factor behind competitive advantage, leading to increased 
competition for talented knowledge workers, the attractiveness of research areas is crucial 
for sustainable and dynamic knowledge economies. Research based on MORE2 data245 and 
the findings of MORE3 and MORE4 provides a clear picture of what drives attractiveness 
among researchers in academia, as illustrated in our conceptual framework in  Section 3. 
Attractiveness  is  driven  by  research  job  characteristics  that  influence  a  researcher’s 
scientific productivity, such as research autonomy, career perspectives and the opportunity 
to work with high-quality peers. All other factors being equal, ‘material’ working conditions 
that  relate  to  remuneration,  pensions  and  job  security  and  other  non-science  related 
conditions influence job choice, but are not decisive factors for job or mobility decisions.  

Career perspectives are cross-cutting working conditions, as they influence both financial 
conditions  and  scientific  knowledge  production,  and  have  an  impact  on  setting  the  time 
horizons for long-term research agendas. Long-term research agendas are more conducive 
to  fundamental  breakthroughs  than  research  agendas  limited  by  fixed-term  contracts. 
Career  perspectives  are  particularly  important  to  early-stage  researchers,  for  whom  a 
performance-based  model  (‘tenure-track’  versus  a  seniority-based  model)  can  make  a 
substantial difference to their careers or career decisions.  

As our conceptual framework in Section 3 makes clear, the attractiveness of postgraduate 
research jobs is hence a result of the structure of recruitment, career paths and the quality 
of working conditions (analysed in Sections 6 and 7). The attractiveness of research areas 
is  also  determined  by  the  attractiveness  of  PhD  studies.  International  or  intersectoral 
mobility  may  be  driven  by  perceptions  of  varying  attractiveness.  In  turn,  mobility 
indicators,  such  as  which  countries  researchers  choose  for  their  international  mobility 
experience,  can  also  be  interpreted  as  indicators  of  attractiveness,  and  mobility 
perspectives  influence  working  conditions  as  they  enable  international  collaboration,  a 
driver of scientific productivity. 

This section presents  the  results of MORE4  survey questions  that asked  EU and non-EU 
researchers to directly compare the EU with non-EU research systems in terms of a number 
of key determinants of attractiveness,  such as working conditions for  research, material 
working conditions, and cross-cutting working conditions. The systems were also compared 
in terms of a range of additional characteristics such as ease of industry collaboration. 

245 Janger, J., Strauss, A. & Campbell, D. (2019). ‘Attractiveness of jobs in academia: a cross-
country perspective.’ Higher Education, 78(6), p. 991-1010; Janger, J. & Nowotny, K., “Job choice 
in academia“. Research Policy 45, Nr. 8 (Oktober 2016): 1672–83. 
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.001. 

172 

 
                                                 
 
13.1.  Key findings246 

Overall, whether researchers regard the non-EU research system as better or worse than 
the EU  system  in relation to  various aspects,  depends heavily on their experience – i.e. 
which system they know. Four groups of researchers who have knowledge of at least one 
EU and one non-EU system were asked to compare the systems. These groups were: 

-  EU  researchers  who  have  been  mobile  to  a  non-EU  country  in  the  past, 
differentiated by country of mobility – associated EU, non-EU OECD, BRICS and 
other emerging countries (MORE4 EU HE survey247; top right panel of Figure 22);  
-  EU  researchers  who  currently  work  abroad,  differentiated  by  country  of 
employment – USA, non-EU OECD, BRICS and other emerging countries (MORE4 
Global survey248; top left panel of Figure 22); 

-  Non-EU researchers who currently work in the EU, differentiated by citizenship – 
associated EU, non-EU OECD, BRICS and other emerging countries (MORE4 EU 
HE survey249; bottom left panel of Figure 22);  

-  Non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU in the past, differentiated 
by country of employment - non-EU OECD, BRICS and other emerging countries 
(MORE4 Global survey250; bottom right panel of Figure 22). 

Figure 22 compares the share of respondents who assess the EU research system as more 
attractive with the share of researchers who assess it as less attractive. The graph contains 
net  shares  (i.e.  share  of  “better  in  the  EU”  minus  the  share  of  “worse  in  the  EU”,  in 
percentage  points).  Where  ‘better’  and  ‘worse’  are  equally  balanced,  this  line  takes  the 
value 0, and is shown explicitly as the line “EU = outside EU”.  Lines within or below the 
line at the value 0  therefore  indicate “EU = worse” (taking negative values),  while lines 
outside or above indicate “EU = better” (taking positive values). Note that these results 
include information from both the MORE3 Global survey (researchers currently outside the 
EU)  and  the  MORE3  EU  HE  survey  (researchers  currently  inside  the  EU).  These  surveys 
followed different sampling strategies, so the results should be interpreted with care (see 
Section 1.4). The panels summarise more detailed categories: 

-  Remuneration  and  other  material  factors.  This  category 

includes 
remuneration, social security and other benefits, quality of life, job security and 
pension plan;  

-  Conditions  for  scientific  knowledge  production.  This 

includes  the 
availability  of  research  funding,  access  to  research  facilities  and  equipment, 

246 Due to the often unchanged nature of the results and the continuing policy relevance of the 
topics raised, and also in light of the new ERA Communication 2020, several parts of this text are 
unchanged with respect to the MORE3 study. 
247 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
248 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
249 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
250 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

173 

 
                                                 
 
working with leading scientists, research autonomy, administrative burden, and 
the balance between teaching and research time;  

-  Engagement  with  industry.  This  includes  the  ease  of  commercialisation  of 

research results, and ease of industry collaboration. 

Non-summarised categories are: 

-  Mobility perspectives; 
-  Attractive career paths; 
-  Availability of suitable positions; 
-  Quality of education and training.  
-  Political situation. 

The main insights are as follows: 

- 

If  researchers  come  from  a  more  advanced  non-EU  research  system  (i.e.  an 
OECD  member  country),  or  if  European  researchers  have  worked  in  such  a 
system during a mobility period, they are less likely to view the EU positively as 
a place to do research. 

-  The  EU’s  strengths  are  perceived  as  including  elements  of  the  remuneration 
group, such as social security, job security, quality of life (vs. the US, but not 
overall) and pension plan (less so for salaries), and of the group education and 
training.  The  EU’s  weaknesses  are  perceived  particularly  with  regard  to 
attractive  career  paths,  and  to  a  certain  extent  also  with  regard  to  the 
availability of suitable positions.  The other categories follow the pattern of 
the first insight, i.e. researchers from non-EU OECD countries, including the US, 
tend to find conditions for knowledge production worse in the EU compared with 
researchers from emerging countries.  

-  Non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU in the past (lower panel, 
right) generally see the EU as being better across the board than their current 
countries of employment. This group mainly came to the EU for chosen exchange 
mobility  (see  Section  9  on  mobility).  The  other  three  groups  rate  conditions 
inside the EU on balance as worse than outside, with the exception of researchers 
from less developed research systems (BRICS and other emerging countries). 
-  Within  the  group  of  EU  researchers  currently  abroad  (left  side  of  the  upper 
panel),  researchers  in  the  US  perceive  the  US  as  a  much  better  place  to  do 
research,  with  the  exception  of  social  and  job  security,  and  quality  of  life.  In 
terms  of  conditions  for  scientific  knowledge  production,  very  few  researchers 
think  that  opportunities  to  work  with  leading  scientists,  research  funding  and 
career paths are better in the EU than in the US. The ease of commercialisation 
of research results or collaboration with industry are also perceived to be better 
in the US than in the EU, similar to the availability of research positions more 
generally. 

-  EU researchers currently working abroad in other OECD countries generally show 
the same pattern as EU researchers who have been mobile to these countries in 
the  past  (upper  right  panel),  but  are  more  positive,  e.g.  with  respect  to  the 
quality of education and training.  

-  Within the group of non-EU researchers currently working in the EU (lower panel, 
left),  researchers  from  associated  EU-countries  –  Iceland,  Norway  and 
Switzerland  –  perceive  the  EU  better  with  regard  to  career  perspectives, 
remuneration  and  the  availability  of  positions,  but  worse  with  regard  to 
knowledge production and mobility perspectives.   

-  Within  the  EU,  wide  variation  exists  in  perceptions  of  the  attractiveness  of 
different research systems. Researchers who have been mobile outside the EU 

174 

 
and who are now working in Central and Eastern or in Southern Europe find it 
relatively more attractive to work outside the EU than inside it, compared with 
researchers  from  Western  and  Northern  Europe.  This  indirectly  reflects  on  the 
attractiveness of their current countries of employment. 

Figure 22: Comparison between working as a researcher outside and inside the 
EU (Task 1) 

EU researchers currently outside EU 

EU researchers currently in EU  

and in the past mobile to non-EU 

Non-EU researchers currently in EU 

Non-EU researchers currently outside EU and in the 

past mobile to EU  

Source: MORE4 EU HE Survey (2019) – top right and bottom left panel 
Notes:  

Positive values indicate higher shares of researchers assessing working in the EU as better rather than 
worse. 
Working conditions are bundled together; for a full picture, see Table 15.  
Non-EU researchers working in the EU are grouped by country of citizenship; EU researchers with 
mobility experience by their mobility destination country. 
Based on question 46: “How does working as a researcher outside the EU compare to inside the EU? 
Please indicate if something was worse, similar or better outside the EU than in the EU.” and question 
74: “How does working as a researcher outside the EU compare to inside the EU? Please indicate if 
something was worse, similar or better than in the EU.” 
(bottom left panel: n=227, top right panel: n=717) 

Source: MORE4 Global survey (2020) – top left and bottom right panel 
Notes:  

175 

 
 
 
 
 
EU researchers who work abroad (TG1) and non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past 
(TG2) are each grouped by their current country of employment. 
Based on question 48: “How does working in … compare to working as a researcher in Europe? Please 
indicate if something is worse, similar or better in … than in Europe.” and question 58: “How does 
working as a researcher in Europe compare to your current employment in …? Please indicate if 
something is worse, similar or better in Europe than in ...” 
(top graph/left half of the table: n=245-318, bottom graph/right half of the table: n=307-402) 

Figure 23 summarises Figure 22 by aggregating the four researcher groups based on the 
number  of  respondents,  forming  two  groups  –  researchers  working  in,  or  with  mobility 
experience  in  non-EU  OECD  countries;  and  researchers  working  in,  or  with  mobility 
experience  in  the  BRICS  or  other  emerging  countries.  This  figure  should  be  interpreted 
with  caution  as  it  aggregates  different  groups  of  researchers  from  different  surveys. 
However, the aggregate picture clearly illustrates the observed differences in perceptions 
of  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  a  research  destination  between  researchers  with 
experience in stronger research systems and researchers with experience in the research 
systems of economically less-developed countries. 

176 

 
Figure 23: Balance of researchers perceiving the EU as better or worse than other 
research areas 

Source: MORE4 EU HE Survey (2019) and MORE4 Global survey (2020) 
Notes:  

Positive (or negative) values indicate a higher share of researchers who perceive working in the EU as 
better (or worse) than outside. 
Working conditions are bundled together; for a full picture, see Table 15. 

Table 16: Comparison between working outside the EU and working inside the EU 
as a researcher: full set of data of the figures above 

EU researchers abroad 

Non-EU researchers 
mobile to the EU 

Anglo-
Saxon 

USA 

Non-
EU 
OECD 

BRICS  Others 

Anglo-
Saxon 

Non-
EU 
OECD 

BRICS  Others 

Career path 

-45.1 

-65.5  -30.9 

-13.7 

9.8 

-6.8 

30.6 

50.0 

48.5 

Conditions for scientific 
knowledge production 

-18.5 

-38.1  -11.6 

19.7 

9.9 

23.1 

42.1 

55.2 

55.2 

Administrative burden 

-9.6 

-22.2 

1.1 

26.4 

14.8 

28.8 

42.0 

44.5 

31.1 

Autonomy 

-32.1 

-40.0  -26.0 

-5.5 

1.8 

1.5 

22.9 

47.7 

47.2 

Research facilities 

-21.4 

-54.5  -10.6 

29.7 

27.8 

16.2 

45.5 

62.8 

69.7 

Working with leading 

scientist 

-10.5 

-45.5 

-1.6 

39.7 

27.8 

35.7 

53.3 

71.5 

68.2 

Research funding 

-9.2 

-43.6  -12.9 

31.0 

7.7 

26.6 

48.8 

53.3 

61.5 

Teaching balance 

-23.3 

-20.0  -19.6 

-2.9 

-25.0 

22.2 

42.1 

47.1 

52.1 

Engagement with industry 

-24.6 

-48.8  -14.6 

5.0 

26.5 

16.0 

41.2 

50.9 

50.6 

177 

 
 
  
  
  
  
EU researchers abroad 

Non-EU researchers 
mobile to the EU 

Anglo-
Saxon 

USA 

Non-
EU 
OECD 

BRICS  Others 

Anglo-
Saxon 

Non-
EU 
OECD 

BRICS  Others 

-33.3 

-63.2  -21.5 

4.3 

18.6 

14.3 

44.3 

49.4 

47.5 

-16.2 

-38.1 

-8.3 

6.9 

31.4 

15.9 

39.1 

52.3 

51.2 

Commercialisation of 

results 

Collaboration with 

industry 

Mobility perspectives 

-17.8 

-47.2  -13.9 

19.4 

21.8 

34.9 

57.1 

64.7 

68.0 

Availability of position 

-39.7 

-61.8  -39.1 

-26.4 

-21.2 

-21.8 

-1.7 

18.1 

29.0 

Remuneration 

4.1 

15.3 

3.6 

30.5 

25.1 

7.2 

28.0 

50.2 

55.9 

Remuneration 

-34.3 

-62.3  -34.1 

-1.4 

1.8 

-24.5 

17.9 

56.3 

58.9 

Social security 

36.4 

58.2 

34.8 

54.9 

44.4 

34.9 

44.4 

40.6 

54.2 

Pension 

26.5 

33.3 

30.6 

61.9 

63.3 

13.2 

32.6 

27.2 

50.3 

Job security 

7.1 

21.8 

3.4 

24.6 

15.4 

-13.0 

11.1 

5.2 

36.1 

Quality of life 

-11.8 

21.4 

-9.1 

19.7 

12.3 

20.6 

39.8 

77.2 

66.9 

Open science 

6.3 

2.1 

13.0 

45.0 

32.7 

30.0 

48.2 

58.1 

60.9 

Quality of education and 
training 

-3.8 

-19.6 

7.7 

47.8 

9.1 

12.9 

37.1 

63.0 

58.5 

Political situation 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1.6 

22.1 

61.2 

50.0 

Source: MORE4 Global survey (2020) - Table 34 in MORE4 EU Global report. 
Notes: 

Positive (or negative) values indicate a higher share of researchers who perceived working in the EU as 
better (or worse) than outside. 
Based on questions 48 and 58 of the Global survey (see Figure 23 above). 

13.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

As the preceding sections have shown, determinants of attractiveness are mostly linked to 
factors that influence the  scientific productivity  of researchers.  Increasing the quality or 
excellence of research is hence tantamount to fostering attractiveness in general. Higher 
research  quality  encompasses  many  of  the  EU  policy  goals  stated  in  the  new  ERA 
Communication, the Council Conclusions on young researchers, etc., and illustrated in the 
preceding sections: 

- 

Improved doctoral training, e.g. as envisaged by the IDTP (Innovative Doctoral 
Training Principles); 
Improved recruitment procedures and career paths; 
Improved working conditions; 
Improved perspectives for international and interdisciplinary mobility; 

- 
- 
- 
-  Work towards implementing the concept of European Universities, an Erasmus+ 
funded  pilot  initiative,  which  has  enabled  transnational  networking  and 
cooperation across borders between universities in different European and ERA 
participant countries.  

-  Reducing intra-EU variation in research performance: it is a key aim of ERA to 
reduce  the  wide  regional  variations  in  research  and  innovation  performance 
through the convergence of weaker systems. 

178 

 
  
  
  
  
What lessons can be drawn in relation to these policy aims from MORE4’s key findings on 
attractiveness? 

In  summary,  key  career-related  job  characteristics  or  characteristics  that  influence 
researchers’ productivity are perceived on balance to be better in a number of economically 
advanced (OECD) countries with strong research systems, compared with the EU. The EU 
is  seen  as  more  attractive  in  terms  of  quality  of  life,  as  well  as  job  security  and  social 
security arrangements. International evidence251 and the MORE surveys show that career-
related aspects are decisive factors in researchers’ decisions to move away from their home 
country (e.g. independence, working with leading scientists and attractive career paths), 
while they commonly move back for personal or family reasons. Barriers to mobility are 
related to research and mobility funding, the availability of positions, and issues such as 
barriers to the cross-border portability of social security and pensions – recognised barriers 
to the mobility of researchers in an ERA context. This is further confirmed in the analysis 
of the factors driving mobility in the MORE4 surveys (see Section 9).  

This general finding means that the current advantages of the EU in terms of quality of life 
and job  characteristics relating to social and job security  are less  effective as drivers  of 
attractiveness,  or  as  attractors  of  researchers,  than  characteristics  that  influence  the 
scientific  productivity  of  researchers.  Here,  the  advantages  of  the  EU  are  less  clear-cut. 
This  again  depends  on  the  strength  of  the  research  system  with  which  the  EU  is  being 
compared.  To  put  it  differently:  all  other  things  being  equal,  quality  of  life  and  social 
security will play a role in attracting researchers, but the conditions for scientific knowledge 
production must be attractive in the first place. The survey results therefore show a clear 
opportunity  for  the  EU  to  strengthen  its  attractiveness  as  a  place  to  do  research  by 
improving the conditions for scientific knowledge production. 

EU-level and national policy instruments 

Attractiveness  is  a  cross-cutting  area  in  which  the  policy  implications  of  the  preceding 
sections  come  together.  Improving  the  attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  a  destination  for 
researchers  hinges  on  many  factors.  The  analyses  in  the  previous  sections  provide  a 
general picture of how attractive the EU and various other research areas globally are as 
research areas. In addition, they highlight which factors are decisive in determining this 
attractiveness,  and  which  are  enablers  rather  than  drivers.  Working  conditions  for 
research,  or  for  scientific  knowledge  production,  are  drivers  of  attractiveness  and 
international  mobility.  When  such  conditions  are  seen  as  attractive,  they  contribute  to 
researchers choosing the EU as a location for their research because  doing so will foster 
their career and advance their research agenda. Among these are attractive career paths 
(a tenure track model), career perspectives, and working with leading scientists. Important 
enabling  framework  conditions  –  or  barriers  to  coming  to  the  EU  –  include  immigration 
options (rules relating to non-EU nationals working in the EU), and the general availability 
of jobs as well as funding for research. The last of these is a working condition relevant for 
scientific  productivity,  but  generally  is  not  the  main  motive  for  mobility  (as  outlined  in 
Section  9).  Measures  boosting  research  by  firms,  such  as  those  relating  to  access  to 
finance, R&D subsidies and entrepreneurship, as well as broader regulatory and framework 

251 Franzoni, C., Scellato, G. & Stephan, P. (2012). Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 
countries. Nature Biotechnology, 30(12), 1250-1253. 

179 

 
                                                 
 
conditions to promote innovation, will also create positive feedback loops, together with 
national higher education reforms. 

Many  policies  at  EU,  national  and  regional  levels  address  factors  that  are  potentially 
relevant  in  influencing  the  attractiveness  of  the  ERA  relative  to  other  research  areas.  A 
cross-cutting discussion in this regard is provided in Section 15. In this section, we focus 
more specifically on two EU-level policy instruments, EURAXESS and EU research funding 
instruments,  with  regard  to  their  appropriateness  and  awareness  of  them  among 
researchers outside the EU.  This can shed light on ways to strengthen and increase  the 
attractiveness of the EU to researchers who are currently outside it252.  

We therefore present below the MORE4 findings on the role played by EU funding and the 
availability of researcher positions (the EURAXESS jobs portal) on attractiveness. 

The two most important barriers to mobility are the availability of a suitable position and 
the  availability  of  research  funding  (see  Sections  8  and  9).  EURAXESS  and  EU  research 
funding can, as a result, potentially play a very important role as enablers of mobility or 
attractiveness, alongside similar instruments at national level, as they directly address the 
availability of positions and research funding. The results regarding the levels of awareness 
about (and use of) these instruments among our sample of researchers currently working 
outside the EU, shows that awareness is higher among those researchers who single out 
the availability of positions or funding as the main barriers to mobility – particularly with 
regard to the EURAXESS portal. Interestingly, awareness has increased considerably since 
2017 (see Figure 24). This suggests that EU instruments succeed in reaching their intended 
target group. As a consequence, EU funding and EURAXESS can, in principle, contribute to 
a foundation of attractiveness in terms of enabling mobility to the EU – or preventing the 
forced outward mobility of talents - if researchers wish to come to the EU in the first place.  

Awareness of EURAXESS has increased among EU and non-EU researchers working abroad 
,  accompanied  by  an  increase  in  actual  usage.  There  is,  however,  still  room  for 
improvement.253 General interest among non-EU researchers is high, in terms of finding 
out more about EU research funding (see Figure 25), but a frequently indicated barrier – 
indeed, the main one – to using it is the lack of knowledge on the part of researchers about 
specific  EU  research  programmes.  The  results  of  the  MORE4  Global  survey  (like  other 
studies)  also  reveal  that  policies  aimed  at  promoting  the  return  mobility  of  senior 
researchers may be limited in their effectiveness, as interest in return mobility is highest 
among early-stage researchers. 

Funding and the availability of  researcher positions are, however, not the main motives 
driving  self-chosen  mobility  to  attractive  research  systems.  The  factors  that  drive  such 
mobility relate much more to the career perspectives available, such as a clear-cut tenure-
track model in which a permanent position depends solely on performance, opportunities 

252 The MORE4 EU HE survey includes an analysis of the awareness and use of EURAXESS and EU 
research funding. EURAXESS is only known by 19% of researchers in the EU, and used by 34% of 
those. 25% of EU researchers have benefitted from EU funding. 
253 The MORE4 Global survey contains a detailed analysis of awareness and usage patterns for 
EURAXESS and EU research funding. 

180 

 
                                                 
 
to  work  with  leading  scientists,  and  other  factors  influencing  scientific  productivity  (e.g. 
early independence in research).254 

In  parallel  with  addressing  the  enablers  of  attractiveness,  any  effort  to  improving  the 
attractiveness  of  the  ERA  therefore  also  needs  to  improve  the  drivers  of  scientific 
productivity.  These  drivers  relate  to  conditions  for  scientific  knowledge  production  in 
Europe:  e.g.  attractive  career  paths,  innovative  funding  models  that  allocate  funding  to 
the most promising research (i.e. more than simply the availability of funding), procedures 
for the selection of talented young scientists, high-quality structured PhD training etc. In 
general,  these  elements  can  be  more  effectively  dealt  with  at  national  level  through 
reforms to HEIs, universities and research institutions. But the EU also has an important 
role to play here, as outlined in the previous sections, e.g. by facilitating the diffusion of 
best  practices  and  monitoring  progress  in  deepening  the  ERA,  as  well  as  funding  high 
quality  training,  (e.g.  through  the  MSCA  doctoral  training  subsidies).  Note  that  funding 
schemes such as the  ERC indirectly affect public research systems, because  universities 
and  higher  education  policy  makers  adjust  their  research  and  innovation  policies  and 
programmes to make improvements in a way that enables them to obtain more funding 
for excellent research in the future. Steps that can be taken at  EU level to increase the 
portability of pensions and social security will reduce barriers to mobility, and hence enable 
greater mobility – but this needs to be combined with measures to strengthen the drivers 
of attractiveness/mobility. 

254 Note that forced mobility involving a change of employer is associated with the availability of 
positions as a main motive. However, the EU or ERA certainly wants to be attractive even to 
researchers from well-functioning systems who are not forced to move because of a dire situation 
in their home country. 

181 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 24: Awareness of EURAXESS across researcher groups 

Source: MORE4 Global Survey (2020), MORE3 Global Survey (2017) - Figure 101 in MORE4 Global survey. 
Notes: 

Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (2020: n=2,369; 2017: n=1,727) 
TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=327) 
TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=407) 
TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=254) 
TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=1,380) 
Based on question 79: “Do you know EURAXESS Links?” 

182 

 
 
 
Figure 25: Interest in applying for EU funding across researcher groups 

Source: MORE4 Global Survey (2020), MORE3 Global Survey (2017) – Figure 103 in MORE4 Global survey. 
Notes: 

Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n= 2,369) 
TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n= 327) 
TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=407) 
TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=254) 
TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=1,380) 
Based on question 81: “Are you interested in applying for (other) EU funding in the future? 

183 

 
 
 
 
14.  GENDER 

14.1.  Key findings 

Equality between women and men is a fundamental right which also plays a key role in 
achieving  sustainable  economic  growth,  and  has  many  benefits  for  society.  Women 
represent  half  of  the  world’s  population;  however,  their  talents  are  still  not  fully 
incorporated in all aspects of social and economic life. The result is an inefficient situation 
in which a considerable quantity of female resources lies idle. Therefore, enhancing gender 
equality can lead to huge economic and business benefits  that support the objectives of 
Europe  2020:  namely,  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  –  thereby  justifying  the 
fourth ERA priority of “Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research”. 

This  section  focuses  on  gender  difference  among  researchers  on  the  basis  of  the  data 
collected within the framework  of the MORE4  EU HE  survey255, Global survey256 and the 
Indicators report on researchers257. The main insights are: 

-  Equal  distribution  of  women  and  men  in  PhD  studies  or  holding  a  PhD,  but 

training contents differ slightly; 

-  Stagnation in female researcher participation in the European labour market 
- 
- 
-  Significant  under-representation  of  female  researchers  in  the  highest  career 

Less heterogeneity across age groups in Eastern Europe; 
Large variations in gender balance between EU countries; 

- 

stages, particularly in Health Sciences; 
Improvements  in  terms  of  female  researchers’  perceptions  of  recruitment  and 
career progression;  

-  Conversely, women report lower confidence in their future career prospects; 
- 

Fewer  female  researchers  are  satisfied  with  working  conditions  relating  to 
scientific productivity; 

-  Reasons for and against mobility are not independent of gender; 
-  More men than women working in research have children; 
-  The share of researchers with permanent contracts has increased, but the gender 

gap still prevails;  

-  An increasing share of part-time workers are in the higher stages of their careers; 
Fewer female researchers  regard themselves as ‘reasonably well’ or ‘well’ paid 
- 
at every career stage career; and 
Fewer 
arrangements and job security. 

female  researchers  are  satisfied  with  social  security,  pension 

- 

255 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
256 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
257 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Researcher Indicators report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

184 

 
 
                                                 
 
14.1.1. 

Links with gender-equality goals and limitations 

Like its predecessors, the MORE4 EU HE (Higher Education) survey was designed to analyse 
the patterns of mobility and working conditions of researchers currently working in Europe, 
and to map their changes over time. As such, the questionnaire is not designed to evaluate 
gender policy; however, the sampling strategy was set up to include gender as one of the 
main dimensions for analysis.  

The MORE4 and MORE3 Global surveys were used to identify gender differences in non-EU 
countries.  The  sample  of  the  Global  surveys  is  generally  not  representative  in  terms  of 
observation  numbers.  Thus,  any  interpretation  and  comparison  of  these  data  over  time 
should be approached with caution. 

Finally,  the  survey  data  only  allow  for  an  analysis  of  gender  differences  in  terms  of 
perceived  researcher  satisfaction.  The  individual  impressions  of  researchers  may  not  be 
congruent  with  the  actual differences  between  female  and  male  researchers  in  terms  of 
non-science related working conditions (e.g. remuneration) or working conditions related 
to scientific knowledge production (e.g. intellectual support). 

As such, not all aspects of gender-equality in the ERA can be analysed comprehensively. 
However,  gender  differences  among  researchers  with  regard  to  the  main  aspects  of 
mobility  and  working  conditions  can  be  analysed  with  a  high  degree  of  accuracy.  The 
following  indicators,  based  on  MORE4  survey  questionnaires,  can  be  used  to  gather 
information about aspects of gender equality during the course of a research career in the 
EU: 

Table 17: Topics and indicators used for the analysis 

Category 

MORE4 survey indicators 

PhD studies 

Share of female researchers currently enrolled in a PhD programme or 

already holding a PhD, Characteristics of PhD training by gender 

Female labour market 

Shares of female researchers across age groups and countries 

participation in research  

Gender-balanced 

Shares of female researchers across career stages 

representation in all levels of 

staff 

Gender-related discrimination 

Share of female researchers who perceive recruitment as open, 

against researchers and 

transparent and merit-based (by country and career stage, type of 

provision of equal 

contract and position); female researchers’ satisfaction with collaboration 

opportunities 

with leading researchers; female researchers’ satisfaction with the quality 

of training and education; female researchers’ satisfaction with the balance 

between teaching and research; female researchers’ satisfaction with 

research funding; female researchers’ satisfaction with access to research 

facilities and equipment; female researchers’ satisfaction with research 

autonomy 

Parenthood, work-life balance 

Share of female researchers having children (by type of contract and type 

and research careers 

of position); contractual situation of female researchers (working part-

time, having permanent contracts, etc.); career stages and type of position 

Financial situation and the 

Female researchers’ perceptions of remuneration (by contract type, type of 

gender income gap 

position); female researchers’ perceptions of job and social security (by 

185 

 
Category 

MORE4 survey indicators 

contract type, type of position); female researchers’ perception of 

remuneration compared with that outside academia 

The analysis is structured according to the key topics listed in Table 17. Different aspects 
of  gender  equality,  beginning  with  gender  differences  in  PhD  studies,  and  ranging  from 
female labour market participation and gender differences in terms of career progression, 
to the financial situation of female and male researchers in the EU, are examined using the 
identified indicators based on MORE4 and MORE3 data. 

14.1.2. 

PhD studies 

The education and training of young researchers, particularly during their PhD studies, play 
a central role in influencing their subsequent research careers. The design and orientation 
of PhD studies (for instance, with respect to diverse training characteristics) could affect 
gender differences in the transition between education and the labour market. Gendered 
patterns in education are often used to explain gender segregation in the labour market. 

Figure 26: Training modules in transferable skills, by gender (EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes:  

Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders who indicate that they have received any training in 
transferable skills during their doctorate. 
Reasons why researchers did not receive training on different types of transferable skills (based on 
question 54). The possible reasons are: No need, skills already required; No availability of this kind of 
training; No support to allocate time to this kind of training; Others. 
(n= 745) 

Similar to the results of the MORE3 HE EU survey and the ERA progress report 2018, the 
MORE4 HE EU survey data do not suggest notable gender differences in the percentage of 
researchers  currently  enrolled  in  a  PhD  programme  or  already  holding  a  PhD  (93%  of 

186 

 
 
female researchers and 91%  of male). Neither are there huge differences  in the MORE4 
data between women and men regarding most of their PhD training content (Figure 26). 
The  exceptions  are  training  in  decision-making,  IPR,  proposal  writing  and  time 
management.  While  more  male  researchers  than  female  received  training  in  decision 
making (by 13 percentage points), IPR (by 12 percentage points) and proposal writing (by 
11  percentage  points),  more  female  than  male  researchers  received  training  in  time 
management  (by  11  percentage  points).  18%  of  female  researchers  (10%  of  male 
researchers)  report  that  training  in  decision  making  was  not  available;  another  8%  of 
female researchers (4% of male researchers) state that there was no support for allocating 
time to this kind of training. This result is particularly interesting as intensified training of 
female  researchers  in  decision  making  during  PhDs  might  improve  gender  balance  at 
subsequent  career  stages,  where  decision-making  skills  are  required.  Skills  in  proposal 
writing and IPR are important prerequisites for a future career in research institutions or 
laboratories, as well as entrepreneurship.  

14.1.3. 

Female labour market participation in research 

In the EU28, an estimated 564,450 researchers (39.5% of all researchers; MORE3: 39%) 
are women; 865,313 are men (60.5%; MORE3: 61%) (Figure 28, upper panel). Thus, since 
2012 the share of female researchers in the EU has remained constant (MORE2: 38%).  

Indicators  in  the  MORE4  Indicators  report  on  researchers,  developed  on  the  basis  of 
Eurostat  data,  further  complement  the  picture  on  gender  differences  in  the  European 
research system: the average share of female researchers (FTE) in the labour force in the 
EU258 has increased continually since 2000 (3.4 FTEs per 1,000 employees), but stagnated 
from  2013  (5.5  FTEs  per  1,000  employees)  onwards.  In  2016,  it  stood  at  5.6  FTEs  per 
1,000  employees.  Conversely,  since  2000  the  total  number  of  researchers  per  1,000 
employees  has  generally  continued  to  increase  on  an  annual  basis,  indicating  that  the 
increase  in  male  researchers  in  the  labour  force  has  outperformed  that  of  female 
researchers. 

Table  18:  Share  of  female  and  male  researcher  in  different  fields  of  science 
(EU28) 

FEMALE 

MALE 

2012 

2016 

2018 

2012 

2016 

2018 

Natural 

30,1 

28,6 

28,5 

45,4 

44,9 

46,5 

Health 

28,0 

30,2 

28,1 

21,6 

22,0 

21,7 

Social 

41,9 

41,2 

43,4 

33,0 

33,0 

31,8 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012) 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?” and question 11 “What is your main field of research in 
your current position?” 

(2018: n=9,321; 2016: n=10,394; 2012: n=10,547) 

Comparing  MORE4,  MORE3  and  MORE2  data,  female  and  male  researchers’  distribution 
across different fields of science remains unchanged: considerably more male (47%) than 

258 Without Finland and the U.K. Both countries do not provide breakdowns by gender. 

187 

 
 
  
                                                 
 
female (29%) researchers have chosen natural science as their field of research, while the 
opposite is observed for health sciences (22% vs. 28%) and social sciences (32% vs. 43%) 
(Table 18). 

Figure  27,  left  panel  presents  the  age  structure  of  female  and  male  researchers  in  the 
EU28. While among those researchers who are younger than 35 years old, no considerable 
gender differences can be observed, male researchers clearly outweigh female researchers 
among older age groups.259 Only 20% (MORE3: 24%) of researchers older than 65 years 
and 31% (MORE3: 30%) of researchers older than 55 years are women. For the last three 
years, those shares have remained fairly stable, although a slight increase in the middle 
and lower age groups can be observed (+2-3pp). This might support the idea that gender 
differences in the age structure of researchers might reflect a cohort effect, as barriers to 
participation  in  the  (academic)  labour  market  have  (slowly)  decreased  over  the  last  30 
years.  However,  the  result  could  also  be  interpreted  as  indicating  that  a  glass  ceiling 
persists  for  female  researchers  in  European  research  systems,  or  may  reflect  different 
regulations regarding the retirement age of women and men in national pension systems. 

Figure 27: Researchers’ age structure, by gender (EU28) 

Total 

by country groups  
(share of female) 

North  South  West  East 

<35 

42,1 

54,0 

49,1  48,0 

35-44 

45,4 

41,4 

43,3  46,2 

45-54 

42,1 

43,1 

36,2  53,8 

55-64 

38,6 

35,3 

27,2  42,9 

65+ 

25,6 

23,2 

18,2  32,2 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?” and question 3 “What is your year of birth?” 
Average shares of the following country groups are shown: East (CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, PL, SI, SK, BG, RO, 
HR), North (NO, SE, FI, DK, IS), South (PT, ES, IT, EL, MT, CY) and West (BE, FR, DE, NL, LU, AT, UK, 
IE, CH). 
(2019: n=9,321; 2016: n=10,394) 

Interestingly,  however,  major  differences  can  be  observed  between  groups  of  countries 
(see Figure 27, right panel). The most extreme gender differences across age groups are 
seen in Western and Southern Europe. While the share of female researchers in Western 

259 Again, these results are in line with the MORE4 Indicators report on researchers: comparing the 
share of young female PhD graduates to the total share of female researchers indicates that in the 
early career stages, female researchers are better represented. 

188 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
Europe  continually  decreases  with  increasing  age-  from  49%  (MORE3:  49%)  in  the  age 
group <35 years to just 18% (MORE3: 14%) in the age group >65 years-, the picture is 
more ambiguous in Eastern Europe: while the share of women rises between the age group 
<35 years (48%, MORE3: 43%) and the group of 45 to 54 years old researchers (54%, 
MORE3: 56% women), and only drop again among the older age groups (43% and 32%, 
MORE3: 37% and 33%). This inverse-U pattern was the same in MORE3, and might stem 
from differences in women’s domestic and labour market position in the former command 
economies  compared  with  Western  European  countries,  particularly  with  regard  to 
women’s  professional  work  and  high  education260.  The  relatively  lower  share  of  young 
female  researchers  <35  years  in  Eastern  Europe  might  reflect  a  deterioration  in  the 
availability  of  childcare  facilities,  legal  protection  and  government  support  for  working 
mothers  compared  with  previous  systems  in  Eastern  Europe.  It  is  also  in  line  with  the 
findings of the Enwise Expert Group, which examines the situation facing women scientists 
in Eastern European countries and in the Baltic States261. 

The participation of women in the research profession shows significant variation between 
countries,  a  result  supported  by  the  indicators  in  the  MORE4  Indicators  report  on 
researchers,  based  on  Eurostat  data.  In  general  terms,  the  MORE4  data  for  Eastern 
European  and  Baltic  countries  indicate  higher  shares  of  women  than  on  average  in  the 
EU28  countries  (40%).  In  some  countries,  female  researchers  even  slightly  outnumber 
male researchers – for instance, in Croatia (60%), Latvia (60%), Portugal (55%), Lithuania 
(54%)  and  Poland  (54%).  The  largest  imbalances  are  found  in  Czech  Republic  (31%), 
Greece (31%) and Malta (33%%). While the share of female researchers has increased in 
roughly  half  of  countries  since  2016,  particularly  in  Finland  (+9pp),  Poland  and  Austria 
(+7pp),  a  considerable  fall  is  observed  in  others  (Romania:  -11pp,  Hungary:  -7pp). 
However, compared to 2012 the share of female researchers has increased in almost all 
EU  countries.  The  largest  improvements  in  terms  of  the  percentage  share  of  female 
researchers between 2012 and 2019 are observed in Portugal (+14pp), Estonia (+13pp) 
and Croatia (+11pp). In contrast, the greatest decline (-11pp) can be seen in the Czech 
Republic. 

The  lower  panel  in  Figure  28  represents  the  average  shares  of  female  researchers  who 
participated in the MORE4 Global survey in various non-EU country groups. In 2020, 40% 
(MORE3: 40%) of researchers currently working outside the EU and captured in the MORE4 
Global survey were women. The share of female researchers currently working in Anglo-
Saxon  countries  is  comparable  to  the  EU  average  (40%).  The  highest  average  share  of 
female researchers is currently working in the group of `other’ countries (48%), such as 
the Ukraine, Argentina, Malaysia and Thailand. Compared with 2017, only small changes 
can  be  observed,  with  the  largest  increase  in  the  share  of  female  researchers  being  in 
`other’ countries (+12pp). However, when comparing these results to MORE3 it must be 
considered that the sample of the MORE4 Global survey is not representative in terms of 
observation numbers and, thus, any direct comparisons between the MORE4 HE EU survey 
and the MORE3 Global survey should be made with caution. 

260 Pollert, A. (2003): Women, work and equal opportunities in post-communist transition. Work, 
employment and society, 17(2), 331-357. 
261 European Commission (2004): Waste of talents: turning private struggles into a public issue. 
Women and Science in the Enwise countries. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/enwise-report_en.pdf 

189 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 28: Representation of women, by country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019), MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) and MORE2 EU HE survey (2012). 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?”  
The country group “Candidate” includes researchers employed in Turkey (76), Albania (21) and Serbia 
and Montenegro (4). 

(2019: n=8,540; 2016: n=9,412; 2012: n=9,015) 

Generally  speaking,  and  particularly  in  earlier  career  stages,  international  mobility 
experiences  can  boost  research  careers  by  providing  better  training  and  education 
opportunities,  knowledge  spill-overs,  and  by  strengthening  researchers’  networks. 
Similarly to MORE3 and MORE2 survey findings, no differences between women and men 
were observed. Compared with 2016 and 2012, an increase in PhD mobility was observed 

190 

 
 
 
among  both  genders:  24%  (MORE3  and  MORE2:  18%)  of  male  and  23%  (MORE3  and 
MORE2: 19%) of female R2 and R1 researchers who are enrolled in a doctoral programme, 
were engaged in  ‘during-PhD mobility’262.  In contrast to 2016, the  reasons that prevent 
researchers from  undertaking part (or all) of  their PhD training in another  country were 
fairly similar for both female and male researchers in 2019 (MORE4 EU HE survey Section 
7.1). 

14.1.4. 

Gender-balanced representation among all levels of staff 

The  MORE  surveys  do  not  provide  data  on  the  specific  tasks  and  responsibilities  of 
individual researchers, but instead on researchers’ career stages. On average in the EU28, 
women  are  clearly  underrepresented  among  higher  career  stages:  while  51%  (MORE3: 
50%) of R1 and 51% (MORE3: 50%) of R2 researchers are women, the percentage drops 
to 41% (MORE3: 41%) of female researchers in the R3 group and to just 28% (MORE3: 
25%)  of R4 researchers (see MORE4  EU  HE Report,  Section 5.1). Compared  with 2012, 
these shares have increased by 5 percentage points at all career stages, with the exception 
of career stage R4. After a small drop in 2016, the shares of female R4 researchers have 
stabilised at a level comparable to 2012. Overall, the results indicate a positive trend  in 
female  labour  market  participation.  Encouragingly,  this  trend  is  not  restricted  to  lower-
level researcher positions. 

The  discrepancy  between  female  representation  at  different  career  stages  is  more 
pronounced in certain fields of science (see Figure 29). The biggest differences between 
career stages can be seen in the field of Health Science: while more female researchers 
than male are present in early career stages (R1: 62% female vs. 38% male; R2: 63% 
female vs. 37% male), the overall picture shifts dramatically at the highest career stage, 
where male researchers outnumber their female colleagues by more than 47 percentage 
points (R4: 26% female vs. 73% male). This result is in line with previous literature on 
gender  inequalities  in  Health  Science263.  A  similar,  albeit  less  dramatic  pattern  can  be 
observed in the field of Social Science: the gender gap ranges from 19 percentage points 
more female researchers than male in R1 (59% vs 41%) to a majority of 25 percentage 
points for male researchers in R4 (38% vs. 62%). In Natural Sciences, significantly fewer 
women than men are involved in research at every career stage (from -21pp in R2 to -
57pp in R4). 

262 During PhD mobility is defined as >3 months mobility to a country other than the country where 
the researcher did/will obtain his or her PhD. 
263 Kuhlmann, E., Ovseiko, P.V., Kurmeyer, C. et al. (2017): Closing the gender leadership gap: a 
multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic 
health centres in the European Union. Hum Resour Health 15, 2. 

191 

 
                                                 
 
Figure 29: Female representation across career stages in three fields of science 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Based on question 2 “What is your gender?“, question 11 “What is your main field of research in your 
current position?” and question 13” “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” 
(2019: n=9,312; 2016: n=10,394) 

These results are in line with other indicators presented in the MORE4 Indicators report on 
researchers that can be used to analyse women’s career progression. In 2017, 26% of all 
grade A positions are  occupied by women. Although in the last decade, a positive trend 
can be seen in the percentage share of women who are Grade A academic staff, the under-
representation of women in grade A positions (i.e. GCI values above 1) can still be observed 
in several countries, as well as in the EU-average data in 2016 (GCI: 1.64, 2013: 1.68). 
Moreover, the share of women on boards across the EU has been stable over recent years, 
standing at 32% in 2017 (cf. SHE figures). In only three countries (Sweden, Luxembourg 
and  Romania)  are  50%  of  board  positions  occupied  by  women.  Countries  below  the  EU 
average  include  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Greece,  the  Czech  Republic,  Belgium,  Italy, 
Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Portugal and Lithuania. 

The higher overall share of women on boards compared with grade A positions may point 
to the role of the selection procedures used for board positions which, depending on the 
prevailing national regulatory framework and other factors, may take gender issues into 
account to a greater extent than the selection procedures for grade A positions. 

Overall, the results indicate a fairly persistent gender pattern across different career stages 
in EU28 countries. The fact that the shares of female researchers at career stages R1 and 
R2 are fairly high could suggest that there will be a more gender-balanced situation at all 
career stages will emerge in the future. Equally, it could be interpreted as suggesting that 
a glass ceiling persists, at which female researchers drop out before reaching the R3 or R4 
career stages. 

14.1.5. 

Gender-related discrimination against researchers and the provision of 

equal opportunities 

An open, transparent and merit-based recruitment process is an essential precondition for 
general equality between female and male researchers, in all member countries and at all 

192 

 
 
career  stages.  Otherwise,  equal  opportunities  cannot  be  guaranteed,  and  gender 
discrimination by (potential) employers cannot be precluded. 264 

Table 19 shows that the shares of female researchers agreeing that recruitment in their 
home institutions is sufficiently externally and publicly advertised, transparent and merit-
based are somewhat lower in every category than among the group of male researchers. 

Compared with 2016, however, the share of satisfied female researchers in each category 
has  increased  by  between  3  and  9  percentage  points.  The  biggest  improvement  can  be 
seen with regard to perceptions of the transparent and merit-based nature of researcher 
recruitment  at  later  career  stages  (R3  and  R4).  Between  2016  and  2019,  the  same 
improvement  in  perceptions  of  recruitment  procedures  can  be  observed  in  the  group  of 
male researchers. The gender gap has remained constant over time.  

Table 19: Researchers’ perceptions of open, transparent and merit-based 
recruitment (EU28) 

ADVERTISEMENT 

TRANSPARENT 

MERIT-BASED 

Female 

Male 

Female 

Male 

Female 

Male 

EU 

R1 

R2 

R3 

R4 

85%  

88%  

79%  

83%  

81%  

84%  

(2016: 78%) 

(2016: 82%) 

(2016: 71%) 

(2016: 76%) 

(2016: 75%) 

(2016: 78%) 

81% 

84%  

82% 

80%  

83% 

87%  

(2016: 76%) 

(2016: 82%) 

(2016: 75%) 

(2016: 74%) 

(2016: 81%) 

(2016: 77%) 

83% 

84%  

74% 

84% 

79% 

85% 

(2016: 77%) 

(2016: 83%) 

(2016: 68%) 

(2016: 73%) 

(2016: 75%) 

(2016: 78%) 

85% 

89% 

78% 

83% 

80% 

83% 

(2016: 78%) 

(2016: 82%) 

(2016: 69%) 

(2016: 76%) 

(2016: 72%) 

(2016: 76%) 

88% 

89% 

82% 

84% 

82% 

85% 

(2016: 81%) 

(2016: 82%) 

(2016: 74%) 

(2016: 78%) 

(2016: 75%) 

(2016: 80%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes:  

Based on question 2 “What is your gender?“ and question 13 “In which career stage would you currently 
situate yourself?” and question 37 “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to 
recruitment in your home institution?” 
(n= 9,321) 

Gender differences between countries are illustrated in Figure 30. It is remarkable that in 
most  countries,  the  shares  of  female  researchers  who  perceive  recruitment  as  open, 
transparent and merit-based are lower than the corresponding shares of male researchers 
(represented  by  negative  values  in  Figure  30).  Two  exceptions  stand  out  immediately: 
Iceland and Slovenia. In Slovenia in particular, the shares of female researchers who agree 
that recruitment is open, transparent and merit-based are higher than those of their male 
counterparts  by  7  to  10  percentage  points  for  all  three  aspects.  Overall,  however, 
comparing  this  result  with  the  data  from  the  MORE3  survey  suggests  that  gender 
differences  persist  in  researchers’  perceptions  of  recruitment  processes  across  most 

264 See report of the Working Group of the Steering Group of Human Resources Management under 
the European Research Area on Open, Transparent and Merit-based Recruitment of Researchers. 
https://cdn1.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/otm-r-finaldoc_0.pdf 

193 

 
  
  
                                                 
 
countries. In the Netherlands, Cyprus and Portugal in particular, fewer women than men 
perceive recruitment to be open, transparent and merit-based. 

Indeed, designing recruitment processes in a transparent and merit-based manner is just 
one of the elements necessary to establishing and reinforcing gender equality in research 
and academic communities in the EU. The provision of equal opportunities for women and 
men throughout their career progression is equally important. Overall, as with recruitment, 
the share of male researchers who agree that career progression is transparent and merit-
based  is  higher  on  average  than  the  corresponding  share  of  the  group  of  female 
researchers in the EU28 (Table 20). Differences between female researchers at different 
career stages are small, ranging between 3 and 5 percentage points. Since 2016, however, 
there has been a slight improvement in all three categories across all career stages. 

Figure  30:  Gender  differences  in  perceptions  of  open,  transparent  and  merit-
based recruitment, by country (EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019). 
Notes:  

Based on question 2 “What is your gender?“ and question 37 “What is your opinion on the following 
issues with respect to recruitment in your home institution?” 
(n= 9,321) 

Table 20: Researchers’ perceptions of transparent and merit-based career 
progression (EU28) 

TRANSPARENT 

MERIT-BASED 

TENURE 

Female 

72% 

Male 

79% 

Female 

70% 

Male 

76% 

Female 

69% 

Male 

76% 

EU 

R1 

(2016: 67%) 

(2016: 73%) 

(2016: 61%) 

(2016: 68%) 

(2016: 58%) 

(2016: 68%) 

71% 

79% 

74% 

78% 

69% 

71% 

(2016: 69%) 

(2016: 72%) 

(2016: 64%) 

(2016: 64%) 

(2016: 59%) 

(2016: 69%) 

R2 

70% 

76% 

69% 

75% 

69% 

75% 

194 

 
 
 
 
(2016: 66%)  (2016: 73%)  (2016: 64%)  (2016: 64%)  (2016: 60%)  (2016: 69%) 

R3 

R4 

73% 

77% 

68% 

73% 

70% 

74% 

(2016: 63%) 

(2016: 73%) 

(2016: 57%) 

(2016: 68%) 

(2016: 55%) 

(2016: 66%) 

74% 

82% 

72% 

80% 

67% 

80% 

(2016: 74%) 

(2016: 74%) 

(2016: 63%) 

(2016: 70%) 

(2016: 62%) 

(2016: 69%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes:  

Based on question 2 “What is your gender?“ and question 13 “In which career stage would you currently 
situate yourself?” and question 38 “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to career 
progression in your home institution?” 
(n= 9,321) 

As with recruitment, some differences can be seen between countries with regard to the 
perceptions of female and male researchers concerning the transparent and merit-based 
nature of career progression – although it is not necessarily the same countries that stand 
out in a positive manner (Figure 31). The only country in which more female than male 
researchers perceive career progression in their home institution to be open, transparent 
and  merit-based  is  Slovenia.  Overall,  the  results  indicate  gender  differences  regarding 
researchers’ perceptions of the fairness and transparency of career paths in almost all EU 
countries, and independent of career stages. 

Figure  31:  Gender  differences  in  perceptions  of  transparent  and  merit-based 
career progression, by country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes:  

Based on question 2 “What is your gender?“ and question 38 “What is your opinion on the following 
issues with respect to career progression in your home institution?” 

(n= 9,321) 

The  picture  concerning  gender  differences  in  recruitment  and  career  progression  is 
completed by looking at researchers’ confidence in their future career prospects. Female 
researchers are, on average, less confident than their male colleagues (see Section 5.4.3.5 
in the MORE4 EU HE Report, Figure 46). For instance, the share of female researchers who 

195 

 
 
 
 
feel  very  confident  about  their  future  career  prospects  (23%;  MORE3:  18%)  is  11 
percentage points lower than the  corresponding  share  of male  researchers in the  EU28. 
Furthermore, the share of female researchers who lack confidence in their future careers 
easily outweighs the corresponding share of male researchers, and is independent of the 
type  of  contract  or  career  stage.  These  gender  differences  have  remained  stable  since 
2016. 

The balance between the amount of time researchers spend teaching, compared with the 
time  dedicated  to  research  and  publication  activities,  the  quality  of  training,  as  well  as 
opportunities to work with leading researchers, substantially affect the pace of researchers’ 
development and the success of individual research careers. However, in the EU more male 
researchers (80%; MORE3: 76%) than female (73%; MORE3: 70%) are satisfied with their 
environment for scientific knowledge production. This includes research funding, access to 
research facilities and equipment, working with leading scientists, quality of training and 
education, balance between teaching and research, and research autonomy (see MORE4 
EU  HE,  Section  6.2.1).  With  respect  to  each  of  the  aspects  mentioned,  the  shares  of 
satisfied male researchers are higher than the shares of satisfied female researchers. In 
line with the results from 2016, the largest gender differences can still be found with regard 
to satisfaction with the balance between teaching and research. The share of satisfied male 
researchers  (75%;  MORE3:  71%)  outweighs  the  corresponding  share  of  female 
researchers by more than 11 percentage points (Table 21). Similarly, while only 47% of 
female researchers report being satisfied with their research funding, the figure for male 
researchers  is  55%.  With  respect  to  satisfaction  with  opportunities  to  collaborate  with 
leading scientists, the share  of satisfied male researchers (88%) is also higher than the 
corresponding share of female researchers (81%) by 7 percentage points. 

Table 21: Satisfaction with aspects of the environment for scientific knowledge 
production, by gender (EU28) 

Research funding 

Access to research facilities and equipment 

Working with leading scientists 

Quality of training and education 

Balance between teaching and research 

Research autonomy 

MALE 

54.8%  

FEMALE 

46.6% 

(2016: 44.2%) 

(2016: 38.4%) 

81.4% 

74.0% 

(2016: 78.6%9 

(2016: 70.8%) 

88.4% 

80.8% 

(2016: 84.8%) 

(2016: 78.3%) 

90.3% 

85.0% 

(2016: 87.5%) 

(2016: 83.9%) 

74.8% 

63.7% 

(2016: 70.5%) 

(2016: 62.1%) 

92.8% 

87.5% 

(2016: 89.8%) 

(2016: 87.8%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes:  

Based on question 32 “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your current 
position:” and question 2 “What is your gender?“ 
(n= 9,321) 

International  mobility  offers  the  possibility  of  undertaking  collaboration  and  knowledge 
exchange with leading scientists, and can be a decisive factor in determining the rate of 
progress in a researcher’s professional career (and is a key factor in the attractiveness of 
different geographical research areas). The difference in the shares of female (25%) and 

196 

 
 
male (28%) researchers who have been mobile (>3 months) in the last 10 years is small 
(see MORE4 EU HE Report, Section 8.1). 

However, the reasons for and against becoming mobile are not completely independent of 
a  researcher’s  gender.  65%  of  non-mobile  women  mention  failure  to  obtain  research 
funding  as  an  important  factor  in  ultimately  discouraging  them  from  becoming 
internationally mobile. This contrasts with just 54% of non-mobile male researchers (Table 
22)265. Similarly, the share of female non-mobile researchers who report lack of mobility 
funding as a major reason for not becoming mobile is higher by 11 percentage points than 
the corresponding share of male researchers (67% vs. 56%). However, problems in finding 
a suitable position and maintaining their level of remuneration are also more often referred 
to  as  mobility  barriers  by  female  researchers  (64%  and  53%  of  non-mobile  women, 
respectively) than by their male counterparts (55% and 46% of non-mobile men).  

These results are complemented by the analysis of different motives for mobility (MORE4 
EU HE Report, Section 8.1.1.4). Female researchers who have been mobile for >3 months 
during the last 10 years more often mention opportunities for career progression (+9pp), 
as well as personal or family reasons (+7pp) as their main motives for moving abroad. In 
contrast, male researchers more often state a more attractive balance between teaching 
and research (+8pp) and better pension plans (+7pp) as motives for long-term mobility.  

Table 22: Factors influencing non-mobility 

Potential loss of contact with your professional 
network 

Access to research facilities and equipment for 
research 

Quality of training and education 

Finding a suitable position 

Obtaining funding for research 

Obtaining funding for mobility 

Transferring research funding to another country 

Maintaining level of remuneration 

Transferring social security entitlements 

MALE 

FEMALE 

31.4% 

(2016: 
26.6%) 

35.6% 

(2016: 
27.5%) 

25.2% 

(2016: 
26.1%) 

55.4% 

(2016: 
55.1%) 

53.6% 

(2016: 
52.9%) 

55.7% 

(2016: 
51.1%) 

34.5% 

(2016: 
29.9%) 

45.6% 

(2016: 
36.0%) 

37.5% 

(2016: 
34.1%) 

35.1% 

(2016: 
35.1%) 

33.1% 

(2016: 
34.4%) 

31.0% 

(2016: 
36.4%) 

63.9% 

(2016: 
56.5%) 

65.1% 

(2016: 
61.0%) 

67.1% 

(2016: 
64.3%) 

37.7% 

(2016: 
36.4%) 

53.3% 

(2016: 
43.7%) 

41.4% 

(2016: 
41.9%) 

265 Mobile researchers were defined as researchers (R2, R3, R4) who have worked abroad for three 
months or more since completing their higher education (PhD or other) within the last 10 years. 

197 

 
  
                                                 
 
Transferring pension 

Language barrier for teaching 

Language barrier for contact/collaboration with 
colleagues 

Culture 

Obtaining a visa or work permit 

Logistical problems 

Other personal/family reasons 

MALE 

FEMALE 

36.2% 

(2016: 
31.4%) 

25.0% 

(2016: 
31.2%) 

21.0% 

(2016: 
25.7%) 

16.5% 

(2016: 
13.1%) 

23.3% 

(2016: 
15.2%) 

58.3% 

(2016: 
43.1%) 

79.4% 

(2016: 
80.2%) 

41.0% 

(2016: 
38.4%) 

26.9% 

(2016: 
28.7%) 

23.2% 

(2016: 
22.9%) 

14,80% 

(2016: 
12.3%) 

23.8% 

(2016: 
18.2%) 

64.1% 

(2016: 
53.6%) 

79.2% 

(2016: 
75.8%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes:  

Based on question 80 “Which of the following factors were important in ultimately discouraging you from 
becoming internationally mobile and pursuing this path further?” and question 2 “What is your gender?“ 
(n=1,618) 

14.1.6. 

Parenthood, work-life balance and research careers 

In  the  EU28,  the  share  of  male  researchers  who  have  children  (64%)  is  higher  by  8 
percentage points than the share of female researchers with children (56%) in 2019 (see 
Figure  32).  The  overall  share  of  researchers  who  have  children  (61%)  remained  stable 
since 2016, while the difference between men and women closed a little: in 2016, 68% of 
male and 56% of female researchers had children.  

Gender  differences  with  regard  to  children  could  be  based  on  the  combination  of 
challenging  working  conditions  for  researchers  and  gender  differences  in  care  activities, 
rooted in traditional gender role models.266 The high level of flexibility required by many 
research  careers,  and  the  insecurity  inherent  to  them  (for  instance,  with  regard  to 
international  mobility  or  the  chance  of  gaining  access  to  a  more  secure  fixed-term 
employment  contract),  is  generally  easier  to  accomplish  when  there  is  shared  parental 
responsibility for childcare services and/or through the comprehensive provision of formal 
childcare arrangements. However, the latest statistics provided by Eurostat, based on EU-
SILC, indicate that in 2019, out of the 23 EU Member States for which data were available, 
only 10 met the target  for having 33%  of children below three years  old in formal care 

266 An alternative explanation could be that gender differences regarding children reflect a higher 
share of young female researchers compared with young male researchers, who do not yet have 
children. However, this possibility is unlikely since female researchers are not overrepresented in 
any age group, and are instead underrepresented in most (see Figure 27). 

198 

 
  
                                                 
 
structures, and another 10 out of the 23  met the target of 90% of children between three 
and school-age being in formal care (the ‘Barcelona targets’)267.  

Figure 32: Family composition, by gender 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016). 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?” and question 6 “What is your status?” 
(2019: n=5,963; 2016: n=8,306) 

Alternative types of research careers – for instance, those associated with part-time work 
–  can  incorporate  opposing  aspects  in  relation  to  gender  equality.  On  the  one  hand, 
different types of research positions can help to reconcile family duties and labour market 
participation  (independent  of  a  researcher’s  gender).  On  the  other  hand,  in  cases  of 
unequal  distribution  of  responsibilities  for  care  activities  between  men  and  women, 
structural  gender  differences  in  the  social  and  working  environment  may  lead  to  the 
inadvertent  reinforcement  of  gender  disparities  in  career  progression.  Long-term,  part-
time work negatively affects research output and career progression, which in turn could 
prevent  women  from  occupying  key  high-level  decision-making  positions.  Moreover,  it 
increases the likelihood of researchers finding themselves in financially tenuous situations, 
particularly at an advanced age. 

267 In 2019, the countries that met the Barcelona targets regarding children below the age of three 
years were Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, 
Slovenia, and Finland. Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Hungary, the 
Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia met the target referring to children between three and school-
age. For 2019, no data were available for France, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia, and the UK. 

199 

 
 
                                                 
 
Figure  33:  Distribution  of  researchers  by  type  of  contract,  type  of  position  and 
gender (EU28) 

By type of position 

By type of contract  

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) - Figure 8 in MORE4 EU HE report 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?” and question 28 “Type of contract” and question 29 “Type 
of position” 
(2018: n=9,161; 2016: n=10,184- 10,394) 

The upper panel of Figure 33 shows that while full-time positions are the most common 
type of researcher position for both groups (88% of female and 93% of male researchers; 
MORE3: 87% vs. 92%), the percentage of women with part-time positions, especially those 
with 50% or more of the working time, is higher than in the case of men. Similarly, the 
share of researchers with permanent contracts is 8 percentage points higher among male 

200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
researchers than among their female counterparts: 81%  versus 73%  (MORE3: 76% vs. 
66%;  see  lower  panel  of  Figure  33).  The  shares  of  researchers  who  have  a  permanent 
contract  have  increased  considerably  in  both  groups  since  2012;  however,  at  the  same 
time, the gap between female and male researchers has widened slightly (MORE2: 66% 
vs.  58%).  These  observations  could,  however,  be  related  to  the  increasing  number  of 
female researchers in early career stages compared with later career stages. 

A point often made in favour of part-time positions is their ability to facilitate the combining 
of  family  duties  and  labour  market  participation.  This  reasoning  is,  of  course,  gender-
independent. Similarly to the results of MORE3, the share of part-time positions is (slightly) 
larger in the group of researchers without children for both women and men (see Figure 
34).  This  might  be  based  on  the  correlation  between  researchers’  age  and  type  of 
position.268 

Moreover, the 2019 data shows the same pattern seen three years earlier: compared with 
the group of researchers without children, the group with children shows distinct gender 
differences  with  regard  to  researchers’  types  of  position.  While  the  share  of  female 
researchers  who  have  children  and  work  part-time  hardly  differs  from  the  share  seen 
among  their  counterparts  without  children  (11%  versus  14%),  the  share  of  male 
researchers who have children and working part-time (4%) is less than one-third to the 
size  of  the  share  of  those  working  part-time  without  children  (13%).  This  hints  at  a 
continuous transition of female researchers from part-time work in early career stages into 
part-time work induced by childcare responsibilities. 

268 Because early career stages and PhD studies are often connected with part-time positions and 
fixed-term contracts (see MORE4 EU HE survey), the share of researchers without children who are 
employed part-time may be higher in the group of young researchers (which includes fewer 
researchers with children) than in the group of older researchers (which includes more researchers 
with children). 

201 

 
                                                 
 
Figure  34:  Distribution  of  female  and  male  researchers’  types  of  position,  by 
parenthood (EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?” and question 6 “What is your status?” and question 29 
“Type of position?” 
(2018: n=9,321; 2016: n=10,394) 

If progressing to a more senior career stage is assumed to correlate with higher levels of 
decision-making power, part-time-work correlates negatively with decision-making power. 
In  2019,  Figure  35  confirms  this  assumption  to  a  certain  extent:  independent  of 
researchers’  gender,  within  the  group  of  researchers  who  work  part-time,  the  shares  of 
early-stage  researchers  are  particularly  high,  while  the  shares  of  established  or  leading 
researchers are particularly low in comparison to the group of researchers who work full-
time. In addition, within the groups of both part-time and full-time workers, men appear 
much more frequently in career stage R4 than female researchers, which again points to a 
‘glass ceiling’ effect. However, in 2019 both female and male part-time workers are much 
more equally distributed across career stages than three years earlier, indicating a general 
trend  towards  part-time  working  even  at  higher  career  stages.  Women  may  ultimately 
benefit from this development. 

202 

 
 
Figure 35: Career stages and researchers’ types of position, by gender 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes: 

Based on question 2: “What is your gender?” and question 13 “In which career stage would you 
currently situate yourself?” and question 29 “Type of position?” 
(2018: n=9,321; 2016: n=10,394) 

14.1.7. 

Financial situation and gender income gap 

Examining gender-related differences in remuneration packages is critical. First, analysing 
female researchers’ perceptions of their income situation and financial security is central 
to identifying, combatting and taking preventive actions against female poverty and social 
exclusion in the HE sector. Second, differentiation  in remuneration between women and 
men might hint at potential discrimination against female researchers by their employers. 
Third,  a  comparison  between  academic  and  non-academic  working  conditions  could  be 
used to identify differences in the attractiveness  of academic careers, and could help to 
increase the share of female researchers in both academia and in the private sector. 

Research by Janger and Nowotny (2016)269 reveals that female researchers attach a lower 
importance to salary compared with other features of research jobs. Given identical income 
levels, self-reported satisfaction with salary would, thus, be higher for women than men. 
Nevertheless,  across  career  stages,  the  share  of  female  researchers  who  assess 
themselves as being ‘reasonably well’ or ‘well’-paid is slightly lower than the corresponding 
share of male researchers. The difference ranges between 1 (R3), and 9 percentage points 

269 Janger, J. & Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–
1683. 

203 

 
 
                                                 
 
(R1 and R4) (Figure 36). The opposite is true for badly paid researchers, or those struggling 
to make ends meet due to a poor salary. 

Figure  36:  Perceptions  of  remuneration  package,  by  gender  and  career  stage 
(EU28) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE Survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE Survey (2016)-  
Notes:  

Share of researchers who considering themselves ‘well paid’, ‘paid a reasonable salary’, ‘paid sufficiently 
to only make ends meet’, ‘badly paid’, ‘struggling to make ends meet’ or ‘not paid’.  
The category “not paid” doesn´t exist in MORE3 (2016). 
Based on question 33: “How do you feel about your remuneration package (if you do not take into 
account a second income or, if applicable, the income of your partner)?” 
(2019: n=9,321; 2016: n=10,394) 

Gender  differences  in  the  perception  of  remuneration  vary  greatly  between  countries, 
though  in  almost  all  EU  countries,  the  shares  of  female  researchers  who  perceive 
themselves to be ‘well’ or ‘reasonably well’ paid are below those of male researchers. Figure 
37  indicates  that  the  share  of  female  researchers  who  consider  themselves  to  be  either 
‘well’ or ‘reasonably well’ paid is considerably lower than the corresponding percentage of 
male  researchers,  particularly  in  the  Baltic  countries  (e.g.  Latvia:  -23pp),  as  well  as  in 
Eastern European countries (e.g. Hungary: -18pp). However, similar differences are also 
observed  in  Luxembourg  (-19pp).  No  comprehensive,  current  and  detailed  data  are 
available  on  the  actual  salaries  of  researchers  in  EU  Member  States  that  would  allow 
researchers’ perception of their remuneration to be contextualised. However, survey data 
from 2006 are available  on researchers’  remuneration in the public and private  sectors. 
These  generally  support  the  large  variation  in  gender  differences  between  researchers’ 

204 

 
 
salaries across EU countries.270 At that time, gender pay gaps were found in almost every 
EU country, with the greatest differences between female and male researchers occurring 
in Estonia (47%), Portugal (37%) and the Czech Republic (37%)271. Overall, according to 
these  survey  data,  female  researchers  earned  on  average  25%  less  than  their  male 
colleagues in 2006. 

Figure  37:  Gender  differences  in  researchers‘  perceptions  of  remuneration,  by 
country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes:  

Share of researchers who consider themselves ‘well paid’ or ‘paid a reasonably salary’. 
Based on question 33 “How do you feel about your remuneration package (if you do not take into 
account a second income or, if applicable, the income of your partner)?” and question 2 “What is your 
gender?“  
(n= 9,321) 

When  comparing  their  remuneration  with  that  outside  academia,  both  female  and  male 
researchers provide comparable assessments (see MORE4 EU HE survey). While only 10% 
of  female  and  male  researchers  in  the  EU28  feel  better  paid  than  counterparts  outside 
academia, 58% of female and 55% of male researchers perceived their income in academia 
as  being  worse  than  outside  academia.  However,  differentiating  between  career  stages 
shows  that  the  higher  the  career  stage,  the  higher  the  shares  of  female  researchers 
(compared with their male colleagues) who perceive themselves as being worse paid than 
outside academia (Table 23).  

270 See European Commission. "Remuneration of researchers in the public and private sectors." 
(2007), p48. 
https://cdn1.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/final_report.pdf  
271 Survey data for Latvia are missing. 

205 

 
 
                                                 
 
Table 23: Perceptions of remuneration compared with that outside academia, by 
gender and career stage (EU28) 

EU 

R1 

R2 

R3 

R4 

BETTER 

SIMILAR 

WORSE 

Female 

10% 

Male 

10% 

Female 

32% 

Male 

35% 

Female 

58% 

Male 

55% 

(2016: 12%) 

(2016: 9%) 

(2016: 28%) 

(2016: 32%) 

(2016: 60%) 

(2016: 59%) 

9% 

11% 

37% 

31% 

54% 

58% 

(2016: 17%) 

(2016: 12%) 

(2016: 36%) 

(2016: 41%) 

(2016: 47%) 

(2016: 47%) 

8% 

7% 

38% 

47% 

54% 

47% 

(2016: 10%) 

(2016: 10%) 

(2016: 35%) 

(2016: 40%) 

(2016: 55%) 

(2016: 50%) 

11% 

11% 

30% 

33% 

59% 

56% 

(2016: 11%) 

(2016: 8%) 

(2016: 23%) 

(2016: 30%) 

(2016: 66%) 

(2016: 62%) 

8% 

10% 

31% 

36% 

62% 

54% 

(2016: 10%) 

(2016: 8%) 

(2016: 25%) 

(2016: 29%) 

(2016: 66%) 

(2016: 64%) 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) and MORE3 EU HE survey (2016) 
Notes:  

Based on question 35 “How would you compare your remuneration package to that of people with 
comparable skills and experience outside academia?” and question 2 “What is your gender?“ and 
question 13 “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” 
(n= 9,321) 

Overall, the percentage shares  of female  researchers  satisfied with  their social security, 
pension system and job security are lower than the corresponding shares of satisfied male 
researchers in the EU28, by between 5 and 9 percentage points (Figure 38). This negative 
correlation  between  being  a  female  researcher  and  researchers’  satisfaction  with  social 
security, job security and the pension system remains significant even after controlling for 
part-time positions. The largest differences are observed with respect to pensions. In some 
countries – particularly in the Baltic countries,  but also in Hungary, the Czech Republic, 
Germany and Belgium – the differences between the percentage share of satisfied female 
and male researchers easily exceeds 10 percentage points. In 2019, there is no country in 
which the share of satisfied female researchers is higher in all three aspects than that of 
male researchers. 

206 

 
 
 
Figure  38:  Gender  differences  in  satisfaction  with  job  and  social  security 
attributes, by country 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
Notes:  

Based on question 32 “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your current 
position:” and question 2 “What is your gender?“ 
(n= 9,321) 

In comparison to MORE3, an upward trend can be observed: in 2019, the share of female 
researchers satisfied with social security was 84% (MORE3: 81%), 73% were satisfied with 
their  pension  system  (MORE3:  68%)  and  82%  (MORE3:  76%)  with  job  security  (see 
MORE4 EU HE survey). This increase is not specific to female researchers, however, but 
mirrors  the  ongoing  increase  in  average  shares  of  satisfied  researchers  that  have  been 
observed since 2012. 

14.2.  EU policy aims and implications of MORE4 findings 

At EU level, gender equality has been strongly integrated into all types of EU policies and 
programmes  for  researchers  for  more  than  20  years.  In  1999,  for  instance,  the 
Communication  on  ‘Women  and  Science’272  presented  specific  measures  concerning  the 

272 COM(1999)76 final of 17.02.1999; see also the ‘Women and Science initiative’: ETAN working 
group report ‘Science policies in the European Union: promoting excellence through mainstreaming 
gender equality’, 1999; Resolution of the European Parliament on Women and Science of 
03.02.2000 (EP 284.656); Commission working document “Women and science: the gender 
dimension as a leverage for reforming science” SEC(2001)771 of 15.05.2001; Council Resolution 
on science and society and on women in science of 26.06.2001; OJ C 199, p.1 of 14.07.2001; 
Report by the Helsinki Group on Women and Science “National policies on women and science in 
Europe” – March 2002. 

207 

 
 
                                                 
 
strengthening  of  the  gender  dimension  in  European  research  policy.  These  were 
subsequently implemented through the ‘Science and Society action plan’273. The Helsinki 
Group on Gender in Research and Innovation was also established in 1999 by the European 
Commission, to provide guidance on addressing the ‘disadvantage of women’ in research 
and science (support, dissemination and adoption of best practices, monitoring). The group 
continued to exist but in 2017 was transformed into the Standing Working Group on Gender 
in Research and Innovation (SWG GRI) under the European Research Area and Innovation 
Committee (ERAC), which advises the Council of the  EU, the European Commission and 
Member  States  on  policies  and  initiatives  relating  to  gender  equality  in  research  and 
innovation (Priority 4 of the ERA)274. Since 2003, statistics on gender equality in science 
and research have been published in the SHE Figures reports275.  

In 2005, the European Charter for Researchers and Code of Conduct for the Recruitment 
of  Researchers  were  adopted  by  the  European  Commission.  The  Charter  and  Code 
recommend  that  “employers  and/or  funders  should  aim  for  a  representative  gender 
balance  at  all  levels  of  staff,  including  at  supervisory  and  managerial level.”  This  was  a 
positive  signal  with  regard  to  achieving  gender  equality,  given  that  1,242  HEIs  (mainly 
universities) signed up to the Charter and Code, according to the 30 September 2020 ERA 
Communication. A study has recently been commissioned by DG RTD, which focuses on 
ERA Priority 3 (open labour market for researchers) to consider the possible revision and 
updating of the Charter and Code.  

Efforts have continued throughout every step  of the  ERA  implementation  process. Since 
2012, gender equality and gender mainstreaming have become one of the six priorities for 
building  the  ERA.  In  2015,  the  Competitiveness  Council  called  for  “translating  national 
equality  legislation  into  effective  action  to  address  gender  imbalances  in  research 
institutions and decision making bodies and integrating the gender dimension better into 
R&D policies, programmes and projects”276. Moreover, later that year the Competitiveness 
Council encouraged “Member States and the Commission to set ambitious goals on gender 
equality and to take appropriate and concrete actions in their action plans or strategies to 
implement the ERA roadmap by mid-2016”. It concluded that “making use of all talents 
and creating equal opportunities for men and women is not only a matter of fairness, but 
it is also an issue of economic efficiency. Embracing gender equality will contribute to EU 
competitiveness and to growth and job creation”277. 

Thus, all large EU programmes in the fields of R&I explicitly promote gender equality: 

-  The  Horizon  2020  programme  explicitly  implements  this  through  its 
‘Vademecum on Gender Equality in Horizon 2020’, agreed by the Helsinki Group 

273 Communication from the Commission (2001). Science and Society Action Plan. 
274 See ERA Portal Austria (2020). SWG on gender in research and innovation. Retrieved from 
https://era.gv.at/directory/85 
275 See European Commission (2018). SHE figures 2018. Retrieved from 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1 
276 Council of the European Union (2015). Draft Council conclusions on the European Research Area 
Roadmap 2015-2020. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8975-
2015-INIT/en/pdf 
277 Council of the European Union (2015). Advancing gender equality in the European Research 
Area – Council conclusions. Retrieved from https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-
14846-2015-INIT/en/pdf 

208 

 
                                                 
 
delegates,  which  set  the  lines  on  gender  equality,  gender  balance  in  research 
teams  at  all  levels,  and  integrates  the  gender  dimension  into  the  content  of 
research and innovation278.  

-  The  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions  (MSCA)  have  from  the  outset 
emphasised  gender  equality.  In  line  with  the  Charter  and  Code,  and  more 
recently, the Horizon 2020 commitments, they promote gender equality through 
transparent recruitment practices and good working conditions for researchers 
which, among other things, integrate work-(family) life balance. The MSCA also 
promote  gender  equality  through  the  decision-making  process  (evaluation  of 
proposals,  human  resources  in  project  execution  and  supervision;  decision 
making in the MSCA Advisory Group), and in the content of the research itself. 
The interim evaluation of the MSCA279 found that the programme performs well 
in  terms  of  gender  equality.  This  evaluation,  together  with  a  recent  study  on 
research  careers  in  Europe280,  recommends  that  the  Career  Re-start  Panel  be 
enhanced  to  further  stimulate  this  aspect,  for  example  by  allowing  for  longer 
extensions and tailoring training support to the corresponding needs in order to 
enable  restarters  to  fully  re-establish  themselves  and  compete  with  other 
researchers; or by supporting part-time fellowships in a more systemic way. This 
recommendation was addressed in the MSCA work programme 2018-2020. 
-  The European Research Council (ERC) has set up a dedicated Working Group 
to monitor gender balance in ERC calls. This Working Group on Gender Balance 
drafted  consequent  ERC  Gender  Equality  Plans  (2007-2013  and  2014-2020), 
with the objective of raising awareness among (potential) applicants, improving 
gender balance among ERC candidates and within ERC-funded research teams, 
identifying and removing any potential gender bias in ERC evaluation procedures, 
embedding  gender  awareness  within  all  levels  of  ERC  processes,  while 
maintaining a focus on excellence, and striving for gender balance among ERC 
peer reviewers and other relevant ERC bodies281. 

In addition, it has been acknowledged that legislative and institutional levels are crucial to 
the  achievement  of  gender  equality,  which  calls  for  a  combined  effort  by  multiple 
stakeholders  such  as  the  Member  States,  research  funding  organisations  (RFOs)  and 
research performing organisations (RPOs). These developments mark a turning point from 
`fixing  women’  to  `fixing  institutions’  through  comprehensive  gender  equality  plans  to 
achieve institutional change, as well as `fixing knowledge’, with Horizon 2020 and several 
national research funds ensuring that new research incorporates sex and gender analysis. 
This was an important step, both at the political level with regard to the systemic barriers 

278 See European Commission. Gender equality. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-
issues/gender_en.htm 
279 FP7 ex-post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (2017). 
Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
See https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/27e546f6-c847-11e7-9b01-
01aa75ed 71a1  
280 Research careers in Europe, Final Report (2016). Prepared by: PPMI Group (Lithuania) in 
cooperation with CARSA (Spain) and INOVA+ (Portugal) for the European Commission, Directorate-
General for Education and Culture. 
281 See European Commission. Working Group on Gender Issues. Retrieved from 
https://erc.europa.eu/thematic-working-groups/working-group-gender-balance.  

209 

 
                                                 
 
and  disadvantages  faced  by  female  researchers,  and  in  terms  of  the  role  of  the  gender 
dimension in research and innovation.  

In  2018,  the  European  Commission  launched  a  proposal  for  the  next  EU  Research  & 
Innovation  Programme  (2021-2027),  Horizon  Europe282.  According  to  the  proposal,  the 
programme will ensure that gender balance (e.g. in expert groups) is established and the 
gender dimension is followed through at all stages of the research cycle and is effectively 
promoted in research and innovation content.  

In March 2020, the European Commission presented its `Gender Equality Strategy 2020-
2025’  for  gender  equality  in  Europe.  This  addresses  various  fields  in  which  gender 
inequality  still  persists.  The  Commission  “will  introduce  new  measures  to  strengthen 
gender equality in Horizon Europe, such as the possibility to require a gender equality plan 
from applicants and an initiative to increase the number of women-led technology start-
ups”283. These measures will be developed under the Horizon Europe European Innovation 
Council.  

The ERA Progress Report 2016 indicated that different ERA Member States had achieved 
different  levels  of  in  progress  gender  equality,  and  had  very  different  gender  balance 
policies  and  initiatives.  The  ERA  Progress  Report  2018  found  an  increasing  number  of 
gender  initiatives  addressing  various  issues,  including  unconscious/implicit  gender  bias, 
and the inclusion of gender aspects in research, have been adopted across ERA countries 
in recent years. The report found varying degrees of progress, however. 

The same report found that in recent years, one of the key areas of action in this area was 
the  sharing  of  good  practice  examples  among  different  ERA  Member  States  and  the 
development of gender equality guides for research organisations and funders. In 2017, 
Science  Europe  released  a  practical  guide  to  improving  gender  equality  in  research 
organisations.  The  European  Commission  has  supported  the  implementation  of  Gender 
Equality Plans (GEPs) in over 130 RPOs and RFOs through FP7 and Horizon 2020. Similar 
strategies  have  also  been  adopted  at  national  level.  France’s  MENESR  (the  Ministry  for 
Education,  Higher  Education  and  Research)  published  France’s  road-map  on  gender 
equality  in  2016,  which  presented  a  number  of  policies  and  measures  to  boost  gender 
equality in the fields of higher education and research. 

In general, over  recent years,  ERA  Member States have implemented various measures 
focusing on gender equality in research. Examples of these are provided below: 

-  Production  of  recruitment  and  selection  guidelines  for  professorial 
appointments  and  training  on  gender  bias.  RFOs  in  Austria,  Germany, 
Spain, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Sweden have implemented measures 
regarding  gender  equality  for  scientists  and/or  the  integration  of  the  gender 
dimension into  research  content  in  their  evaluation  criteria.  Before  the  Danish 
NAP was published, most Danish universities had already drafted management 
strategies for increasing equality, while some had also integrated gender equality 

282 European Commission (2018). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council 
establishing Horizon Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/budget-may2018-horizon-europe-regulation_en.pdf  
283 ERA Portal Austria (2020). Commission presents gender equality strategy. Retrieved from 
https://era.gv.at/object/news/5203 

210 

 
                                                 
 
into general diversity strategies. A number  of  universities have also appointed 
gender equality or diversity committees. 

-  Better representation of women  on  scientific committees  and advisory 
boards. The main progress with regard to the implementation of the Dutch NAP 
under  Priority  4  relates  to  close  cooperation  between  representatives  of  the 
Ministry  of  Education,  Culture  and  Science,  the  Netherlands  Organisation  for 
Scientific Research (NWO), the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 
(KNAW),  the  Association  of  Universities  in  the  Netherlands  (VSNU),  and  The 
Dutch Network of Women Professors (LNVH). These bodies organised a number 
of  joint  meetings,  themed  days,  workshops  and  other  activities.  In  addition, 
some LNVH activities are directly linked with the goal  of achieving numerically 
proportional representation of women on committees and advisory boards in the 
field  of  academic  research  and  education.  LNVH  also  regularly  produces  the 
publication ‘Female Professors Monitor’, and conducts studies on the gender gap. 
The Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences dedicated an investment of EUR 
5 million to appoint 100 female professors in upcoming years. 

-  Awareness and communication activities aimed at  the whole academic 
community,  to  enhance  awareness  regarding  gender  equality  and 
unconscious  bias.  In  Ireland,  the  SFI’s  staff  received  sector-specific 
unconscious  bias  training  in  2016,  to  minimise  gender  inequality  in  the 
organisation.  

-  Learning  and  teaching  –  exploring  teaching  evaluations  by  gender, 
grade  and  ethnicity;  including  various  aspects  of  equality  and  bias  in 
their  programmes;  courses  on  the  impact  of  gender  stereotypes  on 
career paths and research. For example, with regard to the integration of a 
gender dimension into research content and/or teaching, Spain has implemented 
policies to promote this, and universities and accreditation agencies have been 
key  actors  in  mainstreaming  gender  analysis  in  curricula.  Portugal  has 
implemented  policies  to  promote  the  integration  of  a  gender  dimension  in 
research content and/or teaching, and Portuguese universities and accreditation 
agencies have been identified as key actors in mainstreaming gender analysis in 
curricula. 

-  Monitoring  and  evaluation  –  measuring  the  impact  of  training  and 
reporting progress on gender equality annually. Sweden has increased its 
monitoring  and  evaluation  practices  on  gender  equality  and  gender 
mainstreaming. As of 2016, a series of gender equality observations  had been 
conducted in Sweden. 

-  Several  initiatives,  programmes  and  policies  have  been  adopted  to 
promote the enrolment and retention of women in science. In France and 
Spain,  work-life  balance  was  made  explicit  in  policy  documents.  In  Malta,  the 
adoption of work-life balance related measures has increased (e.g. extension of 
maternity leave allowance, additional free childcare centres, etc.). Similarly, Italy 
has  seen  improvements  in  hiring  policies,  with  more  transparent  recruitment 
procedures  being  introduced  recently  in  RFOs  and  RPOs.  In  Denmark,  some 
universities have signed three-year development contracts with the Ministry of 
Higher  Education  and  Science,  under  which  concrete  goals  have  been  set  for 
increasing  the  share  of  women  in  academic  positions  or  the  share  of  female 
applicants for professorships. 

211 

 
 
Part 3. Policy implications and 
recommendations for further 
research 

212 

 
 
 
 
 
15.  OVERARCHING POLICY IMPLICATIONS 

15.1.  Attractiveness  of  the  ERA:  global  awareness  of  drivers  of  attractiveness 

meets heterogeneity in national research systems284 

In general, MORE4 confirms and updates the findings of MORE3: policy implications are by 
consequence  remarkably  stable,  and  well  in  line  with  the  priorities  of  the  new  ERA 
Communication. Overall, there is something of a ‘global mindset’ as to what makes for an 
attractive research career (in academia), or which characteristics of research jobs are most 
conducive to a successful research career. Characteristics that relate to long-term career 
perspectives, such as research autonomy, working with leading scientists, an appropriate 
balance between time for teaching and time for research, and sufficient funding to allow 
for the implementation of research agendas, are characteristics that influence the scientific 
productivity  of  researchers.  These  were  found  to  be  more  important  factors  than  those 
aspects of researchers’ careers that relate to the ‘material’ conditions of a job or quality of 
life.  

A  shared  understanding  also  exists  as  to  what  skills  and  training  (a  PhD)  matter  for  a 
research  career,  and  which  factors  matter  for  recruitment  and  career  progression. 
Intersectoral mobility between public research or HEIs and private companies are regarded 
as  less  important  for  recruitment  or  career  progression  than  international  and 
interdisciplinary  mobility.  The  findings  of  the  MORE4  Global  and  EU  HE  surveys285  with 
respect to what matters for attractive jobs in research are also consistent with the previous 
literature.286 

By contrast, perceptions regarding the ways in which countries organise and structure their 
research systems (i.e. the conditions they provide for researchers to achieve their creative 
research potential) are much more diverse. While diversity can be positive and may provide 
opportunities for learning, low levels of satisfaction with funding and financial security, or 
very high shares of fixed-term contracts, are not conducive to positive diversity. Another 
example is that the structure of PhD training varies considerably, with the more traditional 
master-apprenticeship model still widespread in many countries, and also in the EU, while 
doctoral  schools  or  more  team-based  PhD  programmes  dominate  in  US  research 
universities. More structured PhD training might also make it easier to impart a wider set 
of  transferable  skills.  In  addition,  variations  exist  across  the  EU  in  terms  of  satisfaction 
with merit-based recruitment and career progression. 

284 Due to the often unchanged nature of the results and the continuing policy relevance of the 
topics raised, also in light of the new ERA communication 2020, several parts of this text are 
unchanged with respect to the MORE3 study. 
285 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
286 e.g. Friesenhahn, I. & Beaudry, C. (2014). The Global State of Young Scientists. Berlin: 
Akademie Verlag; Janger, J. & Nowotny, K. (2016). Job choice in academia, Research Policy, 45(8), 
p. 1672-1683. 

213 

 
                                                 
 
The  discrepancy  between  a  ‘global  awareness’  of  what  matters  for  successful  research 
careers,  and  differences  between  national  research  systems,  gives  rise  to  varying 
perceptions  of  attractiveness  between  countries,  as  well  as  varying  patterns  of 
international  mobility,  including  asymmetrical  mobility  or  ‘brain  drain’.  This  not  only 
pertains at global level, between high-income countries with strong research systems and 
lower-income countries with weaker research systems, but also at European level.  

Whereas  MORE4  –  and  the  findings  of  previous  MORE  surveys  –  point  to  persistent 
differences between EU countries, this heterogeneity is not just a result of different higher 
education  systems  and  career  structures,  but  also  of  economic  development  influencing 
public budgets for research, and hence research funding and the salaries of researchers. 
A  continued  emphasis  on  reforming  national  research  systems  is  hence  a  clear 
policy  implication  of  MORE4,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  ERA  aim  of  helping  weaker 
research systems to catch up with the top systems within the EU. The issue of reform has 
become  even  more  prominent  in  the  new  ERA  Communication  (Priority  1,  prioritising 
investments and reforms and in priority 2, access to excellence), but also with regard to 
matching the conditions that non-EU research institutions provide for their researchers to 
maximise their scientific productivity. The nature of the relationship – win-win or win-lose 
– between the ‘Global Research Area’ and the ‘European Research Area’ will also depend 
to some extent on how level the playing field will be. Research institutions sharing a similar 
level  of  attractiveness  will  lead  to  knowledge  exchange  and  brain  circulation,  while  big 
differences may lead to brain drain. 

Other lessons from the MORE4 surveys on the evolution of the ERA 

MORE4 findings cannot causally attribute changes between MORE2, MORE3 and MORE4 to 
reforms, either at EU or national level. However, on the basis of the MORE4 findings, it is 
possible  to  summarise  changes  and  the  current  status  quo  with  respect  to  EU  policy 
aims:  

-  On  the  one  hand,  there  are  several  positive  developments  that  have 
continued  since  MORE2  in  2012.  Among  these  are  the  growing  share  of 
externally  advertised  positions;  the  rising  agreement  of  researchers  that 
recruitment  and  career  progression  are  merit-based  and  transparent;  a 
decreasing  share  of  fixed-term  contracts;  and  increasing  satisfaction  with 
working conditions (although these results need to be interpreted with care). As 
an  example,  these  positive  developments  at  EU  level  mask  strong  variations 
between  countries.  The  limitations  outlined  in  Section  1.4  also  apply  here  in 
relation to the margin of error: e.g. in terms of gender, positive developments 
are observed among early stage researchers, but it is not clear yet whether these 
will be sustained to significantly change the ‘glass ceiling’ phenomenon observed 
in most EU countries. 

-  Another  important  finding  confirmed  by  successive  MORE  surveys  is  that 
research  careers  are  attractive  by  nature:  researchers  are  intrinsically 
motivated  by  their  enjoyment  of  the  intellectual  challenge  and  the  level  of 
responsibility that come with the activity of research. Increasing the number of 
researchers is hence less a task of building motivation, but of improving working 
conditions and career paths to enable researchers to do what they are interested 
in. Poor working conditions lead to researchers opting out of a research career, 
or  to  ‘forced’  international  mobility.  Attractive  working  conditions  and  career 
paths, together with high levels of satisfaction with the content of research jobs, 
can  also  compensate  for  dissatisfaction  with  pay,  as  regards  comparisons 

214 

 
between academia and the private sector, and/or with non-EU, OECD countries 
such as the US. 

-  There  are  also  areas  in  which  little  change  has  taken  place,  though  not 
necessarily  reflecting  insufficient  policy  efforts.  One  such  example  is 
international mobility, which remains comparable in 2019 to  results from 2016 
and 2012. This is a type of indicator that is not expected to change in the short 
run; but it will be necessary to continue monitoring  longitudinal trends. In the 
longer term, the influences of continued EU policy and programming support may 
be better assessed. 

- 

-  On the other hand, several areas addressed by EU policy aims appear to 
be in further need of reform. The considerable heterogeneity across the ERA, 
and  differences  in  the  perceived  attractiveness  of  different  national  research 
systems (and of the ERA in comparison to other research areas globally) have 
already  been  pointed  out.  This  issue  has  been  fully  acknowledged  at  EU  level 
through  the  new  ERA  Priority  2  (access  to  excellence).  As  a  further  example, 
perhaps surprisingly, a majority of PhD candidates or recent graduates indicate 
that they are supervised by a single researcher, whereas positive developments 
towards  increasingly  structured  training  are  noted  on  the  basis  of  university 
initiatives by the EUA and ERA Working Group on Human Resources, for example. 
The scale of recent progress may simply not have been enough to compensate 
for the wide gap between the EU and the US, where structured doctoral training 
in research universities is the dominant mode. 
In  line  with  MORE3,  the  MORE4  findings  also  indicate  that  interest  in 
intersectoral mobility among researchers currently working in EU HEI remains 
low,  not  just  in  terms  of  dual  positions  or  mobility  stints,  but  also in  terms  of 
whether industry exposure or intersectoral mobility are perceived as important 
for PhD training, or whether entrepreneurship and IPR rights are important skills 
for  a  research  career.  However,  it  must  be  pointed  out  that  this  picture  is  no 
different from countries outside the EU. The evidence available from the MORE4 
Global survey (in line with MORE3) suggests an even lower role for intersectoral 
mobility in recruitment and career progression in the US, despite the fact that 
the US is often cited as an example of a research system that is good at turning 
knowledge  into  growth.  An  important  issue  in  this  respect  is  that  scientific 
productivity  is  positively  associated  with  the  commercialisation  of 
research results, so that fostering the former will also boost the latter287. 
-  Transferable skills are regarded by 86% of researchers in the EU as being very 
important for career progression and recruitment, while 91% consider project-
related  work  experience  to  be  very  important.  However,  only  32%  of  PhD 
candidates  and  recent  graduates  indicate  they  have  received  training  in 
transferable  skills  such  as  time  and  people  management,  grant  writing  or 
communication and presentation skills. This remains unchanged from MORE3. 

287 See, for example, Perkmann, M., King, Z. & Pavelin, S. (2011). Engaging excellence? Effects of 
faculty quality on university engagement with industry. Research Policy, 40(4), 539-552; Di 
Gregorio, D. & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. 
Research policy, 32(2), 209-227; Abramovsky, L., Harrison, R. & Simpson, H. (2007). University 
research and the location of business R&D. The Economic Journal, 117(519); Van Looy, B., 
Landoni, P., Callaert, J., Van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E. & Debackere, K. (2011). 
Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical assessment of antecedents 
and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553-564. 

215 

 
                                                 
 
With regard to the attractiveness of the EU as a place to do research, several findings 
emerge:  

- 

First, the more advanced the non-EU  research system  from which  researchers 
come, or in which they have worked, the less positively they view the EU as a 
place to do research (and the other way around);  

-  Second, the EU’s strengths are perceived as relating to job characteristics such 
as  social  and  job  security,  pension  plans  and  the  quality  of  (undergraduate) 
education  and  training  (subject  to  the  variation  between  countries  mentioned 
previously). The  EU is  perceived  as being less good  on balance than  the most 
advanced  research  systems  when  it  comes  to  drivers  of  attractiveness  and 
international  mobility  (factors 
the  scientific  productivity  of 
influencing 
researchers,  particularly  career  paths)  and  also  in  relation  to  enablers  of 
attractiveness (research funding and availability of positions). 

- 

-  Third, among the four groups of EU and non-EU-researchers288 with comparative 
knowledge of EU versus non-EU research systems, only the non-EU researchers 
who have been mobile to the EU in the past generally regard the EU as better 
across all dimensions than their current countries of employment.  
Fourth, in terms of specific countries or regions, the US continues to be perceived 
as much more attractive. 
Fifth, it is important to stress that the above findings are based on results for the 
EU  as  a  whole,  but  that  these  findings  are  at  the  same  time  driven  by  large 
differences  between  Member  States  and  institutions  –  with  some  institutions 
being very competitive at a global level. 

- 

This points to well-known strengths of the EU (vs. the US), such as social and job security, 
as well as good quality of life, but also the quality of broad (undergraduate) education and 
training.  However,  after  basic  education  and  training,  talented  EU  researchers  seem  to 
perceive  working  conditions  as  being  better  for  a  career  in  science  in  the  US  or  in 
Switzerland, possibly due to independence  at an earlier stage (autonomy), collaboration 
with leading scientists, and (in the case of the US) attractive career paths (tenure track 
models, which link a tenured position solely to a researcher’s output; these are, however, 
also in decline in the US). Again, substantial heterogeneity  must be borne in mind. This 
perception  of  attractiveness  is  consistent  with  bibliometric  studies  of  EU  research 
performance289 and various university rankings. In the purely bibliometric ranking by the 
university of Leiden (see Figure 39 below), the US occupies 14 spots in the top 25; 31 in 
the top 50; and 49 in the top 100. Among the top 25, there are also two Swiss HEIs, two 
Chinese HEIs, one HEI in Iran, one Israeli HEI and five UK HEIs. These results are hence 

288 The four groups were: EU researchers currently working abroad; EU researchers currently 
working in the EU but with a mobility experience outside the EU; non-EU researchers currently 
working in the EU; and non-EU researchers currently working abroad but with a mobility 
experience to the EU. 
289 See, for example, Rodríguez-Navarro, A. &Narin, F. ‘European Paradox or Delusion—Are 
European Science and Economy Outdated?’ Science and Public Policy. Accessed 22 May 2017; 
Albarrán, P., Crespo, J.A., Ortuño, I. & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2010). ‘A Comparison of the Scientific 
Performance of the U.S. and the European Union at the Turn of the 21st Century’. Scientometrics 
85, no. 1(20 April 2010): 329–44; Bonaccorsi, A., Cicero, T., Haddawy, P. & Ul Hassan, S. (2016) 
‘Explaining the Transatlantic Gap in Research Excellence’. Scientometrics, 11 November2016, 1–
25. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2180-2; Hunter, R.S., Oswald, A.J. & Charlton, B.G. (2009). ‘The 
Elite Brain Drain*’. The Economic Journal 119, no. 538: F231–F251. Note also the much stronger 
mobility flows of talented Chinese researchers towards US research universities than to European 
universities (Veugelers, R. ‘The challenge of China’s rise as a science and technology powerhouse’, 
Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue N.19, July 2017. 

216 

 
                                                 
 
different in emphasis from the report by the High Level Group on maximising the impact 
of EU R&I programmes, which found excellent scientific knowledge production in Europe, 
but deficits in terms of turning this knowledge into innovation and growth. While there is 
certainly excellent research in the EU, and the structure of some EU basic research renders 
this excellence less visible (e.g. top German and French basic research institutes such as 
the  Max  Planck  Institutes  or  CNRS  research  institutions  do  not  appear  in  the  university 
rankings),  there  is  definitely  room  for  broadening  research  excellence  in  the  EU,  in 
particular now that the UK is no longer part of the EU. 

It should be noted that many leading research-focused universities in Europe have pointed 
to  deficiencies  in  the  way  in  which  the  ranking  criteria  work.  Looking  ahead,  improved 
metrics are required.  

In  conclusion,  the  MORE4  findings  suggest  the  need  for  a  continued  emphasis  on 
reforms to national research systems, or more generally on reforms to make the EU 
more attractive as a place to do research (including measures to increase the effectiveness 
of  national  research  systems,  in  order  to  make  PhD  training,  career  paths  and  working 
conditions, including perspectives for mobility, more attractive compared with international 
counterparts). 

Figure 39: Ranking of universities by share of publications among the top 1% of 
publications in terms of citations, as well as number of publications (circle size) 

Source: CWTS Leiden Ranking 2020. 

Policy implications 

From the findings above, which have remained remarkably stable throughout the various 
editions of the MORE surveys, it is clear that increasing the attractiveness of the EU or of 
the ERA as a place to do research hinges on many factors. We have conceptualised these 
factors as drivers and enablers of attractiveness.  

217 

 
 
Enablers: research funding and the availability of positions are perceived to be the two 
greatest  barriers  to  mobility  across  the  board  in  MORE4  (as  they  were  in  MORE3). 
Improving  these  factors  would  reduce  barriers  to  mobility  and  make  it  easier  for 
researchers  to  become  mobile.  We  therefore  term  these  two  areas  ‘enablers  of 
attractiveness’: factors that, if improved, will no longer form a barrier to mobility and will 
enable all those interested in an international move to do so. Researchers cannot join an 
otherwise attractive research system if there are insufficient numbers of suitable positions 
and/or insufficient research funding. Further enablers of attractiveness, in particular in an 
international context and when a new job involves changing countries, relate to pension 
portability or immigration rules. However, these administrative barriers are not perceived 
to be the main barriers to international mobility.  

Drivers: The quality of the working conditions that influence scientific productivity, such 
as working with leading scientists, long-term career perspectives (the tenure track model), 
research autonomy and the balance between teaching and research, are the main drivers 
of  attractiveness  for  jobs  in  research:  factors  that  drive  the  decision  of  researchers  to 
become mobile. Previous evidence from MORE2 shows that researchers are “willing to pay”, 
i.e.  to  sacrifice  some  potential  salary,  in  exchange  for  higher  quality-working  conditions 
relevant to scientific productivity. 

In summary: as a general takeaway, reducing administrative barriers to mobility, such 
as enabling pension portability or liberalising entry regulations are important – but they 
will not on their own make the EU more attractive. What is needed in addition are attractive 
working conditions for researchers which help them implement their research agenda. This 
implies  that  a  strong  policy  focus  is  required  at  institutional  and  governmental 
levels  on  boosting  scientific  productivity  to  foster  the  symmetrical  mobility  of 
researchers (brain circulation), and the attractiveness of the EU as a place to do research.  

This  implication  can  be  illustrated  by  a  suggestion  for  policies  aimed  at  increasing 
cooperation  and  mobility  flows  between  the  EU  and  China290.  Increasing  bilateral 
cooperation  programmes  does  not  in  itself  increase  the  attractiveness  of  research 
institutions,  and  Chinese  researchers  go  specifically  to  US  universities  because  of  their 
prestige  –  in  fact,  the  Shanghai  university  ranking  was  set  up  precisely  with  the  aim  of 
guiding  Chinese  students  in  their  choice  of  research  location.  Attracting  Chinese 
researchers  to  European  universities  will,  on  top  of  bilateral  cooperation  programmes, 
require improved working conditions including research funding, research autonomy, and 
working with leading scientists. 

Another  illustration  is  provided  by  policies  to  encourage  return  mobility.  MORE4,  like 
MORE3, shows that the return mobility of researchers is high when they are in their early 
career stages. Conversely, once they are established or tenured at a prestigious university, 
it is very difficult to encourage them to return. Sending out talented researchers without a 
level playing field in terms of the attractiveness of research institutions, as suggested for 
increasing mobility flows, may hence  constitute a risk. This means that efforts aimed at 
recruiting the most promising researchers at early stages of their careers, rather than at 
later stages, are likely to be more successful. In practice, this implies offering attractive 
career perspectives to  early-stage  researchers in terms of, for example, a tenure track-
career model. In this model, researchers join a HEI as assistant professors on a fixed-term 

290 Veugelers, R. The challenge of China’s rise as a science and technology powerhouse, Bruegel 
Policy Contribution Issue N.19, July 2017. 

218 

 
                                                 
 
contract, but turning this fixed-term contract into a permanent one depends solely on the 
research  performance  of  the  researchers.  Trying  to  recruit  leading  researchers  at  later 
career stages would be more costly by comparison. This is not to say that return mobility 
policies  are  necessarily  ineffective,  but  that  they  cannot  replace  an  attractive  research 
system  for  early-stage  researchers.  Both  bilateral  cooperation  programmes  and  return 
mobility policies need, therefore, to be complemented by efforts to improve the conditions 
for scientific knowledge production. 

Implications  for  the  use  of  policy  instruments:  in  terms  of  overall  instrument  use, 
increasing the attractiveness of the ERA in terms of conditions for knowledge production 
could follow a four-pronged strategy:  

-  Further  increasing  research  funding,  which  continues  to  be  perceived  as  the 
working condition in the EU with the least satisfaction; low success rates in Horizon 
2020  have  already  been  discussed,  and  also  apply  to  specific  initiatives  such  as 
European  Industrial  Doctorates.  The  new  ERA  Communication  makes  this  a  clear 
priority  (Priority  1  on  investments).  While  there  is  some  increase  in  budget  for 
Horizon Europe, a substantial increase in research funding will have to come from 
EU  Member States. Without an increase in research funding, it will be difficult to 
improve  the  availability  of  research  positions  or  research  projects  that  can  be 
funded. This could lead early-stage researchers to look at research systems which 
offering more attractive conditions in this regard. 
Increasing  research  funding  could  also  be  used  for  science-business 
research  cooperation,  as  in  the  COMET  funding  programme  by  the  Austrian 
research  promotion  agency  FFG,  for  example.  This  funds  research  cooperation 
between firms and research institutions, including universities, by funding research 
centres in which both industry and academic researchers work together, and where 
pre-docs  also  work.  This  could  be  a  way  to  boost  both  research  funding  overall, 
linking science and business as well as opening up avenues for PhD students. This 
could  be  particularly 
low  business-science 
cooperation, or with very low interest by academics in industry exposure, as well 
as low research funding (e.g. Spain, Italy). 

for  countries  with 

interesting 

- 

-  Ensuring that this money flows to the most talented, particularly in systems 
with a limited overall amount of public research funding. Both the ERC and MSCA 
are  funding  schemes  that  are  clearly  successful  in  allocating  money  to  highly 
promising researchers. 

-  Attracting the most talented researchers, based on attractive career paths and 
working  conditions  for  research,  as  outlined  above.  Satisfaction  with  career 
perspectives is third-lowest among all working conditions in the EU, and researchers 
in particular perceive career perspectives as being better outside the EU than within 
it;  several  EU  instruments  are  also  important  here  in  terms  of  an  open  labour 
market (ERA) and Open, Transparent and Merit-based (OTM) recruitment, as well 
as the MSCA and ERC. 

-  Ensuring that knowledge is shared among policy makers with regard to how 
the  first  three  elements  can  be  achieved  most  effectively.  The  diffusion  of  best 
practices on how to structure recruitment policies, career paths and conditions for 
scientific knowledge production, in order to spread excellence from existing centres 
in the EU to wider areas of the EU, needs to be tailor-made to take into account the 
heterogeneous nature of the EU. It requires country-specific issues to be addressed, 
such as the balance between teaching and research in some  Central and Eastern 
European countries, as well as transparent and merit-based recruitment and career 
paths in certain Southern European countries. Moreover, while a high share of fixed-
term contracts exists in countries such as Germany, this is not the case in many 

219 

 
other  European  countries,  meaning  that  researchers’  careers  continue  to  be 
characterised  by  their  precariousness  with  an  over-dependency  on  short-term 
careers.  Increasing  evidence  is  available  from  comparative  studies  on  achieving 
this, including from the MORE projects and the Policy Support Facility (PSF), which 
is an instrument that supports a growing number of Member States (see the new 
ERA Communication). 

Some specific caveats need to be added, taking account of other literature:  

- 

First, satisfaction with the balance between teaching and research is second-
lowest, next to funding and career perspectives. But what is an “optimal” balance 
between  teaching  and  research?  Research  based  on  MORE2  data  found  that 
“research-only positions” are actually not a driver of attractiveness, and that some 
teaching is even preferred to no teaching at all. However, too much teaching clearly 
decreases the attractiveness of a job in research291.  

-  Second, when a higher share of researchers hold tenured positions, care needs to 
be taken to keep incentives for scientific productivity high over the life-cycle 
of researchers. This can be achieved through allocation of funding (see above), or 
by  making  time  for  research  and  for  teaching  in  part  dependent  on  research 
performance. Of course, this requires careful independent evaluation over longer a 
time  horizon,  e.g.  10  years.  Otherwise,  time  horizons  for  research  would  be 
shortened, leading to risk aversion.  In principle, however, such flexibility  will not 
only keep positions open for early stage researchers, but will also help to address 
the balance between teaching and research. 

-  An  increased  emphasis  on  drivers  of  attractiveness  does  not  mean  that 
enabling  conditions  should  be  overlooked.  For  instance,  a  general  enabling 
prerequisite for international mobility, or people coming towards the EU, is simply 
the ability to teach in English – not in terms of the researcher speaking English, but 
in terms of the university allowing the researcher to teach a course in English. This 
often  limits  the  recruitment  of  international  researchers.  Finally,  several  EU 
instruments  are  in  place  to  improve  social  security/pension  portability  (the 
EURAXESS  network  and  the  RESAVER  programme,  the  first  ever  pan-European 
pensions scheme). 

EU and national-level initiatives are addressing many of these points (see Sections 4-14). 
MORE4  cannot  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  these  initiatives,  but  the  MORE4  findings 
clearly indicate the need to continue efforts to increase the attractiveness of the EU as a 
place  to  do  research,  as  is  the  goal  of  the  new  ERA  Communication.  This  not  just  in 
comparison  to  strong  research  systems  outside  the  EU,  but  also  involves  further 
concentrating  efforts  to  help  weaker  EU  research  systems  to  catch  up  with  the  top  EU 
performers  –  again,  as  indicated  in  the  new  ERA  Communication  with  its  emphasis  on 
excellence,  brain  circulation  and  widening.  Such  efforts  could  benefit  from  regular 
monitoring of the attractiveness of research systems in terms of attractive job offers. The 
figure  below  shows  an  index  of  job  attractiveness  for  selected  countries,  based  on  the 
findings  of  MORE2  and  further  work.  Such  a  regular  ‘ranking’  of  research  systems  with 

291 See Janger, J. & Nowotny, K. (2016). Job choice in academia. Research Policy, 45(8), 1672-
1683; the “optimal” share of teaching in combined teaching-research time (without administrative 
tasks) was found to be roughly 27% for early stage researchers, and somewhat higher for later 
stage researchers. 

220 

 
                                                 
 
respect to their attractiveness could provide reform incentives for policy-makers, similar 
to the rationale for the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). 

Figure  40:  Example  of  an  indicator-  and  expert-based  assessment  of  job 
attractiveness in academic research 

Source: Janger, J., Strauss, A. & Campbell, D. (2019). “Attractiveness of jobs in academia: a cross-country 
perspective “. Higher Education 78(6), p. 991-1010. 

15.2.  Lessons  for  optimal  knowledge  exchange  and  circulation  through 

researcher mobility 

Aside from the attractiveness of the ERA, optimal exchange and circulation of knowledge 
within and outside the EU is a key dimension in the realisation of the ERA, and in the setup 
of the MORE studies (see the conceptual framework in Section 3). Under the concept of 
optimal  exchange  and  circulation  of  knowledge,  international,  intersectoral  and 
interdisciplinary mobility play a crucial role, as well as other forms of exchange through 
research collaborations. Mobility both mirrors and affects attractiveness. Many of the ideas 
mentioned above will thus also affect mobility. In the following section, we will therefore 
not repeat these overarching points, but rather focus on specific policy implications by type 
of mobility. We also discuss the concept of Open Science under the heading of knowledge 
circulation. Based on a comparative analysis of findings from the various MORE4 surveys 
and reports292, a number of policy-relevant conclusions are outlined. 

292 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Researcher Indicators report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 

221 

0.000.200.400.600.801.00AustriaFranceGermanyItalyNetherlandsPolandSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUKUSA 
 
                                                 
 
International mobility293  

As  stated  before,  international  mobility  is  generally  considered  a  key  dimension  of 
international networking and knowledge exchange, with positive effects for the individual 
researcher and for the research and knowledge ecosystem as a whole. At individual level, 
researchers  see  positive  effects  on  the  advancement  of  their  skills  and  scientific 
productivity, as well as on their career progression. At system level, international mobility 
facilitates capacity-building and interconnectivity within the system.  

An analysis of the findings of consecutive MORE studies makes it clear that there are many 
different  forms  and  motives  for  undertaking  mobility,  and  not  all  forms  of  mobility  are 
voluntary.  Forced  mobility  points  to  a  heterogeneity  in  terms  of  available  research 
positions, funding, career progression and working conditions. Self-chosen mobility refers 
to a positive choice for exchange and networking. The main questions arising in the policy 
context are how to further foster mobility, how to address the issue of forced mobility, and 
how to evolve towards more balanced brain circulation in Europe.  

Many  policy  initiatives  tend  to  focus  on  facilitating  administrative  processes  (e.g.  visa 
procedures), human resource practices or even social security and pension rights. However 
important  these  efforts  are  to  reducing  barriers  to  mobility  and  creating  a  level  playing 
field,  the  responses  to  the  MORE4  EU  HE  survey  indicate  that  at  an  individual  level, 
researchers mainly move for reasons relating to scientific production. Researchers move 
to another country because of networking opportunities, to work with leading scientists, 
and  for  research  autonomy.  They  also  feel  that  it  has  a  positive  effect  on  their  career 
progression. A balance between removing barriers and improving conditions that drive the 
mobility of researchers will be essential both to attract mobile researchers and to enable 
them to undertake this step to, or within, Europe.  

In  this  context,  it  is  necessary  to  give  attention  to  the  specific  situation  of  early-stage 
researchers. Even though the drivers of mobility for early-stage researchers are generally 
the same as those for post-PhD researchers, early-stage researchers are at the same time 
more focused on their training and on the availability of research funding and positions. In 
this respect, actions or services can be further addressed towards young researchers by 
taking these specific needs into account. 

The effects of mobility can also be further optimised by encouraging researchers to return 
voluntarily  to  their  home  countries,  maintaining  their  networks  from  their  mobility 
experiences  and  benefitting  from  the  knowledge  exchange  this  entails.  This  can  be 
considered for early-stage researchers (less bound to permanent positions) and those in 
later  career  stages  (highly  positive  effect  in  terms  of  bringing  with  them  networks, 
knowledge,  skills,  etc.),  but  will  only  be  effective  when  the  research  environment  is 
sufficiently attractive for them to consider a return. 

At the same time, the concept of knowledge exchange and mobility can evolve over time. 
The increased focus on digitalisation and sustainability, as well as recent experiences with 
digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic, may have an impact on mobility behaviour 

293 In the MORE4 EU HE survey, international mobility refers mainly to transnational mobility within 
the EU – and only to a lesser extent includes information on flows outside Europe.  

222 

 
                                                 
 
over the coming years, with virtual collaboration and mobility becoming more important 
than  before.  The  availability  of  information  technology  and  digital  solutions  can  further 
facilitate virtual exchanges294. The MORE4 study shows that virtual mobility can, to some 
extent, replace (mainly) short-term visits295. A report by the ERA-SGHRM Working Group296 
also  foresees  opportunities  to  foster  virtual  mobility,  in  particular  when  combined  with 
short  term  visits297.  The  combination  of  physical  and  virtual  mobility  thus  remains 
important  for  reaping  the  full  benefits  of  collaboration  and  exchange.  An  additional 
advantage of virtual mobility is that it can enable interaction with top researchers who do 
not want to move for a longer period of time, or with researchers who have moved to more 
attractive research regions but who want to continue collaborating and to support capacity 
building in their home country. 

At  the  system  level,  fostering  brain  circulation  within  the  EU  and  increasing  the 
attractiveness  of  the  EU  as  a  destination  for  researchers  at  a  global  level  requires  a 
continued  effort  to  reduce  the  impact  of  differences  in  R&I  and  HEI  systems  across 
countries.  As  stated  by  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  in  a  report  on  international 
mobility298, divergences between countries will persist as long as excellence in research is 
fragmented and dispersed. By contributing to the  research excellence of Member States 
and harmonising existing best practices, the EU will not only foster ‘internal’ international 
circulation, but will also strengthen its attractiveness outside Europe. This cannot be seen 
in isolation from other policy domains, i.e. in the field of innovation, education, regional 
development,  etc.  Synergies  have  been  sought  between  funding  programmes,  and  will 
continue to be strengthened.  

The new ERA Communication299 strongly emphasises the need for this: it will support ESFRI 
with regard to research infrastructures, and will work together with the European Education 
Area  (EEA)  to  strengthen  the  public  science  system.  Moreover:  “Large-scale  concerted 
action in support of the institutional transformation efforts of universities will be based on 
a roadmap of EU, national and regional actions for better use of synergies between Union 
programmes  including  Horizon  Europe,  Erasmus,  ESF+  and  ERDF  and  private  R&I 
investments, notably through the support of the InvestEU programme.”  

294 See, for example, ERA-SGHRM Working Group (2016). Innovative Transnational Research 
Mobility and Welcoming Researchers to Europe; Inzelt A. (2010) Analysis of Researchers’ Mobility; 
European Science Foundation (2013) Science Policy Briefing. New Concepts of Researcher Mobility, 
a comprehensive approach including combined/part-time positions.  
295 See MORE4 EU HE report: Virtual mobility seems to have an increasing impact on the reduction 
of international mobility. 57% of the researchers in MORE4 indicate that virtual mobility can reduce 
short term visits, while this share was 51% in 2016 (MORE3) and 50% in 2012 (MORE2). For long-
term visits, 22% of the researchers in MORE4 indicate this option, versus 9% in 2012 and 11% in 
2016. 
296 ERA-SGHRM Working Group (2016). Innovative Transnational Research Mobility and Welcoming 
Researchers to Europe https://cdn3.euraxess.org/sites/default/files/policy_library/final_era-
sghrm_innovative_transnational_research_mobility_and_welcoming.pdf  
297 This refers to the EuroScience Open Forum meeting, which concluded that virtual mobility would 
work, but should be combined with short-term visits to other labs to allow face-to-face contact. 
See O’Carroll, C. (2014). Virtual mobility can drive equality. Nature, 511, 292 
298 Fernández-Zubieta, A. & Guy, K. (2010). Developing the European Research Area: Improving 
knowledge flows via researcher mobility. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, JRC-IPTS. 
299 European Commission (2020) Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 

223 

 
                                                 
 
Reforms to R&I systems will also continue to be supported through Horizon Europe, and in 
particular the ‘Widening participation and strengthening the ERA’ package. This will support 
the  ‘lower-performing’  Member  States  to  valorise  and  connect  existing  ecosystems  and 
thereby improve access to excellence300. The ‘widening programme’ operates in synergy 
with  the  Cohesion  Policy:  “A  smart  and  coherent  use  of  Cohesion  policy  support  should 
complement  EU  and  national  R&I  programmes  in  upgrading  knowledge  infrastructures, 
building  capacity  and  inducing  structural  transformations,  on  the  basis  of  well-designed 
smart specialisation strategies.” 

Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration 

The  MORE4  study  defines  interdisciplinary  mobility  as  moves  between  fields  and 
collaboration with other fields. Researchers indicate that they generally  regard  this as a 
positive factor for recruitment and career progression – less so than international mobility, 
but more so than intersectoral mobility. The extent to which interdisciplinarity is necessary 
or beneficial for researchers might depend on the career type and research topic. But in 
general, where policy supports interdisciplinarity, it also supports individual researchers in 
their careers. MORE4 data indicates,  for example, that researchers  who have worked in 
projects funded by an MSCA or ERC grant tend to display higher levels of interdisciplinary 
mobility and collaboration than the general population of researchers. 

However, one issue that arises in the interpretation of the data and contextualisation within 
the existing literature is that there is no commonly accepted definition of interdisciplinary 
research,  mobility  or  collaboration.  This  makes  it  difficult  to  compare  or  benchmark 
findings.  A  clear-cut  definition  would include  a  definition  of  the  concept  of  a  “discipline” 
and a differentiation between the ways in which research is carried out (i.e. the integration 
of theories, methods, data, etc.) and the ways in which researchers work and collaborate 
(i.e. with colleagues working in the same discipline, or in a different one).  

Although the concept of interdisciplinarity is a lesser part of the picture than international 
mobility  and  intersectoral  exchange,  it  is  also  of  increasing  importance  at  system  level. 
The missions to be launched under the mission-oriented policy approach applied in Horizon 
Europe are expected to link activities across disciplines and types of R&I301. The scientific 
and innovation solutions needed to help solve some of the most challenging problems of 
this time will require an interdisciplinary approach, and this will be further supported via 
the Horizon Europe programme. 

Intersectoral mobility 

Intersectoral  mobility  is  considered  a  key  element  of  knowledge  transfer,  at  all  career 
stages and in all fields. Initiatives promoting intersectoral mobility – and more generally, 
a strong interconnectivity with other sectors and other actors, can be one of the solutions 
to closing the gap between academia and industry. The new ERA Communication (2020)302 
mentions the need for intersectoral mobility schemes that can incentivise researchers to 

300 Ibid. 
301 European Commission. Missions in Horizon Europe. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/horizon-europe/missions-horizon-europe_en  
302 European Commission (2020). Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 

224 

 
                                                 
 
pursue a career outside academia and “boost the permeability of talents across Europe’s 
economy and society”.  

However,  the  MORE4  findings  show  that  interest  in  intersectoral  mobility  among 
researchers currently working in EU HEIs  remains low, not just in terms of dual positions, 
or mobility stints, but also in terms of whether industry exposure or intersectoral mobility 
is perceived as important for PhD training, or whether entrepreneurship and IPR rights are 
important skills for a research career. 

-  The  share  of  researchers  working  in  the  private  sector  in  the  EU  (based  on 
Eurostat  data)  is low  in  comparison  with  other  advanced  economies  (Japan  or 
the  US).  Instead  of  converging,  the  MORE  EU  surveys  show  that  the  levels  of 
intersectoral  mobility  in  the  EU  have  decreased  from  30%  in  2012  to  25%  in 
2016, and to 24% in 2019. 
In addition, researchers who currently work in academia generally do not attach 
great value to intersectoral mobility as a positive factor for recruitment or career 
progression.  Initiatives  promoting  the  positive  recognition  of  intersectoral 
mobility in performance evaluations or recruitment in academic settings are still 
rare. 

- 

-  Researchers who have experienced intersectoral mobility have different reasons 
for  doing  so  These  also  depend  on  the  sector(s)  in  which  they  have  worked. 
Contribution  to  society  is  more  frequently  mentioned  among  those  who  have 
worked  in  the  government  and  not-for-profit  sectors.  Gaining  first-hand 
experience  of  industry,  remuneration  and  bringing  research  to  the  market  are 
more  commonly  cited  motives  among  those  with  experience  in  private 
industry303. Future initiatives to promote intersectoral mobility should therefore 
take into account researchers´ motivations in order to trigger as much interest 
as possible from individual researchers. 

-  Differences are also observed between fields, and the motivations or expected 
benefits can differ for researchers from different fields. From the policy-making 
perspective,  future  initiatives  would  need  to  take  into  account  the  differences 
between fields of science, and should explicitly define the expected benefits. 

Aside from mobility to other sectors, other forms of exchange and collaboration should be 
fostered  to  exploit  the  potential  of  industry-science  linkages  and  the  transfer  of  ideas. 
MSCA  co-funding  of  doctoral  programmes  already  positively  takes  into  account 
“collaboration with a wider set of partner organisations, including from the non-academic 
sector, which may provide hosting or secondment opportunities or training in research or 
transferable  skills”304.  The  MSCA  Research  and  Innovation  Staff  Exchange  (RISE) 
(previously IAPP, or Industry-Academia Pathways and Partnerships) is a further example 
of  exchange  opportunities,  offering  support  for  short-term  mobility  of  research  and 
innovation staff at all career levels, from the most junior (post-graduate) to the most senior 
(management).  They  are  based  on  flexible  intersectoral  exchanges  (within  Europe)  and 
international  exchanges  (with  third  countries)  of  highly  skilled  research  and  innovation 

303 See Table 14 in Section 12.1. 
304 European Commission (2020). Co-funding of regional, national and international programmes. 
Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-
details/msca-cofund-2020     

225 

 
                                                 
 
staff.  Innovative  Training  Networks  (ITN)  explicitly  mention  the  meaningful  exposure  of 
researchers  to  the  non-academic  sector  as  an  important  factor  in  increasing  their 
employability305.  

However,  intersectoral  mobility  is  not  considered  widely  recognised  in  the  evaluation  of 
researchers’ performance. This hinders researchers´ incentives to engage in this type of 
career move. In the renewed policy context (i.e. Horizon Europe and ERA), intersectoral 
cooperation and mobility of researchers, and the importance of training in relevant skills 
for  multiple  research  career  paths,  are  again  confirmed.  This  may  support  initiatives 
towards the stronger recognition of cross-sectoral research opportunities in the future. 

Open Science 

Open  Science  is  highly  relevant  in  the  context  of  knowledge  exchange  and  research 
careers. The concept has become increasingly important in the European Research Area 
and in funding/grant programmes at European level. It is expected to increase efficiency 
and creativity, reinforce excellence, and strengthen society’s trust in science306.  

Reinforcing  a  culture  of  Open  Science  begins  with  education  and  training.  In  2017,  the 
Working Group on Skills of the Steering Group Human Resources and Mobility (SGHRM) 
focused  on  the  introduction  of  Open  Science  education  and  training  tailored  to  the  four 
career stages (R1-R4), as well as in doctoral training programmes, and in earlier education 
(i.e. Master’s, Bachelor’s, high school)307. For this purpose, the working group identified 
the skills necessary for  Open Science and proposed a  European Skills and Qualifications 
Matrix for Open Science. 

One  of  the  main  challenges  in  this  context  is  the  rewarding  and  incentivising  of  Open 
Science contributions, in a variety of possible career paths. The Working Group on Rewards 
of the SGHRM recommended308, among other things, that ERA policies, ERA roadmaps and 
National  Action  Plans  should  be  reviewed  through  the  lens  of  Open  Science  to  ensure 
compatibility.  Assessments  for  recruitment,  career  progression,  grant  evaluation,  etc. 
should therefore include Open Science elements (see the proposed OS-Career Assessment 
Matrix). 

In  2020,  the  new  ERA  communication309  supports  Open  Science  under  the  pillar  of 
‘Deepening the ERA’, and sets the following objectives: 

-  To  continue  building  the  European  Open  Science  Cloud  (EOSC)  as  a  common, 
federated, European framework for openly sharing research data and accessing 
services; 

305 European Commission (2020). Innovative Training Networks. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-
details/msca-itn-2020 ITNS  
306 European Commission (2020) Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 
307 European Commission Open Science. Retrieved from  
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=skills_wg  
308 Working Group on Rewards under Open Science (2017), Evaluation of Research Careers fully 
acknowledging Open Science Practices; Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers 
practicing Open Science 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/pdf/os_rewards_wgreport_final.pdf#view=fit&pagemod
e=none   
309 European Commission (2020) Communication. A new ERA for Research and Innovation. 

226 

 
                                                 
 
-  To  develop  an  Open  Research  Europe  publishing  platform  for  open  access  to 

scientific publications (via Horizon Europe); 

-  To  incentivise  Open  Science  practices  by  improving  the  research  assessment 

system. 

The  upcoming  Horizon  Europe  Framework  programme  will  be  strongly  based  on  Open 
Science as its modus operandi, going beyond Horizon 2020’s open access policy to require 
immediate open access for publications and data, and research data management plans. 
The EC states that the Programme will “encourage the proliferation of FAIR data (findable, 
accessible,  interoperable,  and  re-usable)  and  support  a  sustainable  and  innovative 
scholarly communications ecosystem. It will foster activities to improve researcher skills in 
Open  Science  and  the  reward  systems  that  promote  this.  Research  integrity  and  citizen 
science will play a central role, as will the development of a new generation of research 
assessment indicators.” This will be facilitated through the European Open Science Cloud 
(EOSC),  which  provides  an  environment  for  hosting  and  processing  research  data  to 
support EU science.310  

The  updated  Skills  Agenda311  stipulates  the  need  to  develop  Open  Science  and  science 
management curricula for researchers, to support the upskilling of scientists.  

Given the increased policy attention to Open Science at EU level, the MORE4 study included 
a number of new options and questions to address this evolution and gain further insight 
in the concept. The key finding are: 

- 

-  On the training aspect, the MORE4 EU HE survey shows that only 19% of PhD 
candidates received training in Open Science approaches. Open Science is thus 
not yet explicit in training for the majority of researchers. 
In  terms  of  assessment,  we  find  that  Open  Science  practices  are  less  often 
considered  positive  for  recruitment  or  career  progression,  in  comparison  with 
most other factors. Comparing this perception regarding Open Science practices 
as  positive  factors  for  recruitment  and  career  progression  with  activities  that 
researchers have already engaged in, we find the following: 

o  Although publication in Open Access journals is not among the top factors 
positively  affecting  recruitment  and  career  progression  (69%  of 
researchers  consider  it  positive  for  recruitment,  71%  for  career 
progression), 83% of researchers have already published in Open Access 
journals.  

o  Similarly,  81%  have  participated  in  public  awareness  activities  (these 
activities are considered to be positive for recruitment/career progression 
by 74%/77% of researchers, respectively).  

o  Moreover, most researchers are willing to share research data, software 
and codes publicly. By 2019, 75% of the researchers had at some point 
shared  this  kind  of  information.  Time  will  confirm  whether  this  trend 
persists. 

310 European Commission (2020). European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/goals-research-and-innovation-
policy/open-science/eosc_en  
311 European Commission (2020). Communication. European Skills Agenda for sustainable 
competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. 

227 

 
                                                 
 
- 

- 

From the MORE4 EU HE survey, there are indications that funding can play a role 
in better understanding Open Science and encouraging an Open Science culture. 
Although there are other factors for which the effects of grants are confirmed by 
more researchers, 70% of researchers in EU HE still think that grants affect their 
understanding and application of Open Science approaches. In general, European 
grants  are  associated  more  often  than  national  grants  with  effects  on  Open 
Science. 
International mobility (>3 months post-PhD mobility) has a smaller effect on the 
understanding/application  of  Open  Science  approaches  than  it  does  on  other 
factors such as networking, advancing research skills, recognition in the research 
community,  etc.  Around  half  of  the  mobile  researchers  indicate  this  factor 
remained unchanged after international mobility. 

-  Working  within  the  HE  sector  is  considered  slightly  better  for  Open  Science 
approaches  than  working  outside  the  HE  sector  (although  the  majority  of 
researchers find it to be similar in both contexts). 

-  Open  Science  is  considered  to  be  much  better  in  the  EU  than  in  many  other 
countries  (BRICS  and  others),  but  slightly  worse  than  in  the  non-EU  OECD 
countries (this observation is similar to that for other factors). 

The  findings  thus  confirm  the  need  to  continue  efforts  in  the  field  of  training  and 
assessment frameworks, as well as encouragement through the integration of elements of 
Open Science into EU research funding instruments, to further support an Open Science 
culture among researchers and the HEIs they work for.  

15.3.  Achieving gender equality in science 

Although a quantitative ‘catching up’ by women in terms of access to academic positions 
has been observed over the past few decades, key literature, supported by the statistics, 
demonstrates that there are ongoing gender inequalities in terms of the recruitment and 
career advancement of women in higher education systems. Besides the omnipresent wage 
gap  between  women  and  men,  this  is  particularly  true  for  more  qualitative  aspects  of 
researchers’  lives,  such  as  access  to  senior  level,  decision-making  positions  and  to  full-
time positions; the balance between teaching and research;  and conflicts between  roles 
(i.e. between work and family).312 Of course, the scope of gender inequality differs between 
higher  education  systems,  fields  of  science,  and  countries.  The  findings  of  the  MORE4 

312 e.g. Bryant, L.D., Burkinshaw, P., House, A.O., West, R.M. & Ward, V. (2017). Good practice or 
positive action? Using Q methodology to identify competing views on improving gender equality in 
academic medicine", BMJ Open, 2017, 7(8), p. e015973; Goastellec, G. & Pekari, N. (2013). 
Gender differences and inequalities in academia: Findings in Europe, The work situation of the 
academic profession in Europe: Findings of a survey in twelve countries, Springer, 2013, pp. 55–
78; Herman, C. & Hilliam, R. (n.d.). The Triple Whammy: Gendered Careers of Geographically 
Marginalised Academic STEM Women, Science and Technology, p. 19; Kuhlmann, E., Ovseiko, P.V., 
Kurmeyer, C., Gutiérrez-Lobos, K., Steinböck, S., von Knorring, M., Buchan, A. M. & Brommels, M. 
(2017). Closing the gender leadership gap: a multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in 
management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union, Hum Resour 
Health, 15(1), p. 2; Leisyte, L. & Hosch-Dayican, B. (2013). Changing Academic Roles and Shifting 
Gender Inequalities: A Case Analysis of the Influence of the Teaching-Research Nexus on the 
Academic Career Prospects of Female Academics in the Netherlands, Journal of Workplace Rights, 
17(3–4), pp. 467–490; O’Connor, P., O’Hagan, C. & Brannen, J. (2015). Exploration of 
masculinities in academic organisations: A tentative typology using career and relationship 
commitment, Current Sociology, 63(4), pp. 528–546. 

228 

 
                                                 
 
Global  and  EU  HE  surveys313  on  gender  inequalities  in  research  jobs  are,  by  and  large, 
consistent with the previous literature. 

The results of MORE4 show that the participation of female researchers in the EU labour 
market has stagnated since 2012. In total, compared with the share of female researchers 
at earlier career stages, women are less often found in leading scientific positions, with the 
gap being particularly high in Health Sciences. Improving the share of female researchers 
at  more  senior-level  career  stages  may  also  result  in  them  being  more  confident  about 
their financial situation. Overall, women perceive their financial situation in a less confident 
way than men, and are less likely to be satisfied with their pension plan, social and job 
security. This is accompanied by an unequal distribution of female and male researchers 
in  terms  of  contracts  and  positions.  Although  the  overall  share  of  researchers  with 
permanent  contracts  has  increased  since  2016,  the  gender  gap  still  prevails,  with  more 
women  than  men  having  fixed-term  contracts.  Fewer  female  researchers  hold  full-time 
positions compared with their male colleagues, though male researchers are more likely to 
have children. 

Suggested  initiatives  and  measures  targeting  gender  inequality  are  manifold.  In  2018, 
eight  countries314  received  specific  recommendations  under  the  European  Semester 
framework to improve female labour market participation315. Existing gender inequalities 
threaten to worsen as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis. A strategy 
for economic recovery that improves access to inclusive, high-quality early childhood care, 
education and upbringing – which is known to compensate for social disadvantages – would 
bring  socioeconomic  benefits  in  the  medium  and  long  term,  and  could  open  up 
opportunities for women to participate more fully in the labour market. Even in countries 
with relatively high female employment rates before the crisis (e.g. Austria), a high share 
of women were employed part-time. To some extent, this is the result of the sub-optimal 
provision  of  childcare  facilities,  which  prevents  a  reduction  of  the  gender  pay  gap.  In 
scientific research, the issues relating to part-time work may be  even more pronounced 
due  to  the  ‘masculine  orientation’  of  the  research  ethos,  which  builds  on  the  notion  of 
science  as  a  mission  performed  by  a  devoted  researcher  with  no  commitments  outside 
science316.  Combined  with  increasing  competition  for  the  best  brains,  which  encourages 
risk-taking and tough behaviour, researchers working part-time will find it difficult to gain 
scientific recognition and thus decision-making positions. 

The  literature  has  identified  three  complementary  approaches  to  address  gender 
imbalance:  individual,  cultural  and  structural  approaches317.  While  approaches  involving 

313 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation.  
PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2020). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Global Survey Report. European 
Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
314 Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Slovakia. 
315 Report on equality between women and men in the EU 
316 Linková, M. (2017). Academic Excellence and Gender Bias in the Practices and Perceptions of 
Scientists in Leadership and Decision-making Positions, Gender and Research, 18(1), pp. 42-66. 
317 See Schmidt, E.K., Cacace, M. (2018). Setting up a dynamic framework to activate gender 
equality structural transformation in research organizations, Science and Public Policy 46(3), p. 18, 
for a comprehensive overview on the topic. 

229 

 
                                                 
 
‘fixing the individuals’ focus on mentoring, training and coaching programmes, it has been 
widely acknowledged that institutional gender barriers that reproduce gender stereotypes 
and privilege male career progression within university faculties need to be tackled at the 
same time318. Because gender inequality is linked to other organisational problems, various 
measures  such as diversity training for decision-makers, are therefore  recommended to 
address  managerial  and  organisational  bias319.  Moreover,  institutional  hierarchies 
determine the likelihood of an individual rising to a higher, decision-making position within 
an organisation. Thus, one of the most promising ways to address structural issues might 
be  “practices  that  assign  responsibility  for  change  to  the  organisation”320.  Schmidt  and 
Cacace point out that in the case of Denmark, where many supportive programmes and 
services  were  already  in  place,  the  biggest  problem  was  lack  of  awareness  of  the 
persistency  of  gender  inequality  and  its  effects  on  scientific  careers.  “Symbolic  and 
interpretive negotiations were therefore mostly needed in this situation, as a prerequisite 
for the mobilisation of internal and external stakeholders”321.  

The evaluation of policy measures to improve gender equality is, however, challenging. In 
the  framework  of  the  PRAGES  Project322,  Kalpazidou-Schmidt  and  Cacace  (2017)323 
evaluated survey data on 125 gender equality programmes in Europe, North America and 
Australia during the last three decades. The interventions most often implemented in these 
programmes are networking initiatives, dissemination of information material, mentoring 
programmes,  training  courses,  empowerment  schemes  and  mainstream  actions.  The 
introduction of quotas  and the establishment of specific targets to increase the share  of 
women in leading positions were the least  common. While most of the programmes are 
highly relevant and sustainable, the weak point of all programmes is efficiency, and one in 
10 programmes demonstrate only minor impact. Furthermore, in comparison with North 
America and Australia, European programmes appear “to have a greater capacity to impact 
the gender dimension of research, teaching, and design, while they seemed to have less 
objective  impact  on  the  creation  of  an  enabling  environment  for  women”324.  This  is 
supported  by  the  MORE4  results,  which  show  little  improvement  in  female  researchers’ 
satisfaction with their job environment, promotion and participation in high-level positions 
over recent years. The authors conclude that project quality and impact are non-linearly 
related: “These results highlight the complexity of the task and the difficulties for gender 
equality programmes to achieve significant impacts even when they meet high-level quality 
standards in terms of management and implementation”325.  

318 e.g. Van den Brink, M. & Stobbe, L. (2009). Doing gender in academic education: The paradox 
of visibility, Gender, Work & Organization, Wiley Online Library, 16(4), pp. 451–470. 
319 See Willemsen, T. & Van Vianen, A. (2008). Gender issues in work and organizations, Applied 
social psychology: Understanding and managing social problems, Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge, UK, pp. 206–225. 
320 Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy 
of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies", American sociological review, Sage 
Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 71(4), pp. 589–617. 
321 Ibidem. 
322 Practising Gender Equality in Science (PRAGES) Project: 
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/217754/reporting 
323 Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. & Cacace, M. (2017). Addressing gender inequality in science: the 
multifaceted challenge of assessing impact", Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, 26(2), 
pp. 102–114. 
324 Ibidem. 
325 Ibidem. 

230 

 
                                                 
 
The results of the EFFORTI project326 show that the optimal approach is a combination of 
interventions aiming  to improve gender balance higher up the  career  ladder, along with 
interventions  aimed  at  more  structural  change.  Moreover,  gender-equality  interventions 
are  better  legitimised  when  synergies  between  different  initiatives  are  exploited.  Thus, 
German DFG standards327 and the Excellence initiative were cited as positive examples of 
gender equality initiatives. Gender-biased recruitment or promotion procedures could be 
overcome  by  tools  such  as  ‘future  potential  analysis’,  under  which  “a  candidate  for  a 
leadership  position  is  assessed  for  her/his  ‘future  potential’  as  opposed  to  past 
achievement”328.  Gender  equality  was  observed  to  have  an  impact  on  R&D  outcomes 
particularly  in  the  case  of  interventions  that  incorporate  gender  dimensions  in  tertiary 
education  and  research  content.  Moreover,  the  implementation  of  legislation  by 
accreditation  agencies  appears  to  be  an  effective  instrument  for  integrating  gender 
dimensions  into  tertiary  education,  demonstrating  the  key  role  of  the  governance 
framework. 

Though somewhat rarely used in HE sectors, the setting of quotas connected to university 
funding  could  be  used  to  target  gender  imbalance.  For  instance,  to  promote  good 
employment practices  for  women working in science,  engineering and technology in the 
UK, the NIHR started shortlisting only medical schools with an Athena SWAN Silver status 
for certain research grants in 2011. Recent research on this initiative shows that there was 
a marked improvement of women succeeding in medical schools, but so far the initiative 
has not demonstrated a significant overall impact on female researchers’ career paths in 
the long run329. 

Another key challenge is to achieve not only top-level but also bottom-up commitment to 
addressing  gender  equality.  Measures  such  as  funding  that  is  specifically  targeted  at 
women,  while  providing  a  more  concrete  programme  objective  that  can  lead  to  higher 
demand, run the risk of causing resentment in some parts of an organisation. The literature 
indicates that even the `good’ guys, i.e. men who would be seen by their colleagues as 
pro-feminist,  exhibit  “a  reluctance  to  forego  the  material,  interactional  or  ideological 
privileging of masculinity or to change the structures which perpetuate it”330. Thus, positive 
attitudes and motivation toward gender equality initiatives are as essential as formulating 
targets and standards followed up by monitoring (i.e. information and indicators regarding 
the intervention must be available). Thus, strategies to soften resistance are necessary, 
such as integrating gender equality problems into meetings with directors and managers 

326 Evaluation Framework for Promoting Gender Equality in R&I (EFFORTI): https://efforti.eu/ 
327 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (2018). The Research-Oriented Standards on Gender 
Equality. Retrieved from 
https://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/principles_dfg_funding/equal_opportunities/research_orie
nted/index.html 
328 Palmén, R. & Müller, J. (2019). Synthesis on the Case Study Work (Work Package 4), 
https://efforti.eu/sites/default/files/2019-05/EFFORTI_Summary_Case%20Studies.pdf. 
329 Gregory-Smith, I. (2015). The impact of Athena SWAN in UK medical schools. The Sheffield 
economic research paper series (SERPS); Ovseiko, P.V., Chapple, A., Edmunds, L.D. & Ziebland, S. 
(2017). Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an 
exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions. Health research policy and systems, 15(1), 
1-13. 
330 O’Connor, P., O’Hagan, C. & Brannen, J. (2015). Exploration of masculinities in academic 
organisations: A tentative typology using career and relationship commitment. Current Sociology, 
63(4), 528-546. Also, Armato, M. (2013). Wolves in sheep's clothing: Men's enlightened sexism & 
hegemonic masculinity in academia. Women's Studies, 42(5), 578-598. 

231 

 
                                                 
 
to highlight gender  equality  as a  relevant issue  for the institution. Awareness  of gender 
inequality and a strong commitment to change across institutional levels must be a central 
policy goal. For instance, Manchester et al. report that despite existing university policies 
to  exclude  time  after  a  birth  from  the  ‘tenure  clock’,  female  researchers  experienced  a 
wage penalty when using this regulation because it was perceived as a lack of commitment 
to the institution331. After all, the success or failure of all initiatives crucially depends on 
gender  competence,  experience  and  knowledge,  which  is-  another  reason  to  promote 
participation  in  gender  equality  actions  and  its  positive  acknowledgement  within 
recruitment processes. 

15.4.  Reflections on current policy instruments 

The Marie Skłodowska-Curie action and the ERC grants are two of the EU instruments most 
frequently used by researchers to undertake different forms of mobility. The Marie Curie 
Actions were launched in 1994 and their name was changed to Marie  Skłodowska-Curie 
actions (MSCA) in January 2014, while the ERC was set up in 2007. The general objectives 
of  MSCA  and  ERC  grants  are  aligned  with  the  overarching  objectives  pursued  by  the 
Framework Programmes. The MSCA and ERC programmes were part of the previous 7th 
Framework Programme, though they were encompassed in different specific programmes. 
The  ERC  was  included  in  the  Specific  Programme  IDEAS,  providing  project  funding  for 
individuals  and  their  teams  engaged  in  ‘frontier  research’.  In  this  context,  this  type  of 
research is referred to in the following terms: “basic research in science and technology is 
of critical importance to economic and  social welfare, and on the other that  research at 
and  beyond  the  frontiers  of  current  understanding  is  an  intrinsically  risky  venture, 
progressing  on  new  and  most  challenging  research  areas  and  is  characterised  by  an 
absence of disciplinary boundaries”332. 

The MSCA, meanwhile, were included in the Specific Programme PEOPLE, funding “actions 
to improve the training, career development, and mobility of researchers between sectors 
and countries worldwide”333. Its main objective was “to make Europe  more attractive to 
researchers  […]  by  pursuing  a  considerable  structuring  effect  throughout  Europe  on  the 
organisation,  performance  and  quality  of  research  training,  on  the  active  career 
development of researchers, on knowledge-sharing through researchers between sectors 
and research organisations, on increasing partnership between industry and academia, and 
on  strong  participation  by  women  and  early-stage  researchers  in  research  and 
development.”334 

Under  the  Horizon  2020  Framework  Programme,  both  the  MSCA  and  the  ERC  funding 
schemes  share  similar  overarching  objectives.  These  are  summarised  in  Article  14  of 
Regulation  No.  1291/2013,  which  calls  for  linkages  and  interfaces  to  be  implemented 
across  and  within  the  priorities  of  Horizon  2020.  Various  objectives  defined  by  this 
Regulation are of interest to this note: 

331 Manchester, C.F., Leslie, L.M., & Kramer, A. (2013). Is the clock still ticking? An evaluation of 
the consequences of stopping the tenure clock. ILR Review, 66(1), 3-31. 
332 (2006) Council Decision concerning the Specific Programme "Ideas" implementing the Seventh 
Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and 
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) L 400/265 
333 European Commission (2013). Seventh FP7 Monitoring Report (p.4) 
334 (2006) Council Decision on the Specific Programme "People" implementing the Seventh 
Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and 
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013)L 400/282 

232 

 
                                                 
 
-  The development and application of key enabling and industrial technologies as 

- 
- 

well as future and emerging technologies; 
Interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral research and innovation; 
Fostering  the  functioning  and  achievement  of  the  ERA  and  of  the  flagship 
initiative 'Innovation Union';  

-  Widening participation across the Union in research and innovation and helping 

to close the research and innovation divide in Europe; 
International networks for excellent researchers and innovators; 

- 
-  Cooperation with third countries;  
-  Responsible research and innovation including gender;  
-  SME  involvement  in  research  and  innovation  and  broader  private  sector 

participation;  

-  Enhancing the attractiveness of the research profession; and  
- 

Facilitating cross-border and cross-sector mobility of researchers. 

Excellent research, as well as international, interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility, are 
therefore at the  core  of all MSCA and ERC funding schemes funded both under FP7 and 
H2020. This will remain so under Horizon Europe, where the ERC and MSCA are included 
under the pillar of Excellent Science. 

The  MORE4  EU  HE  survey335  was  designed  to  analyse  patterns  of  mobility  and  working 
conditions of researchers in Europe. As such, it was not specifically tailored to analysing 
the characteristics of MSCA and ERC grant holders, nor researchers employed by projects 
funded by these initiatives.  Although (as we will later show) some questions in the MORE4 
EU HE survey relate to the general objectives of these programmes, the specific goals and 
expected impact of each of them cannot be analysed in detail. These programmes provide 
various types of grants destined for specific target groups, and it was not part of the design 
of  the  MORE4  survey  to  target  them  specifically.    Some  important  remarks  are  worth 
highlighting: 

-  The survey does not provide information on the role of respondents in  relation 
to MSCA or ERC grants: i.e. there are no insights as to whether the respondents 
were principal investigators of a project, unique beneficiaries of a fellowship, or 
employed in a project funded by these initiatives336. 

-  The  survey  does  not  allow  differentiation  between  current  grant  holders  and 

those who have benefited from these grants in the past.  

-  The  survey  does  not  provide  any  information  on  the  period  during  which  the 

grant or fellowship was received, or when the project was carried out. 

Due  to  these  limitations,  it  is  not  possible  to  analyse  causal  relationships  based  on  the 
MORE EU HE surveys. However, the MORE surveys offer high-quality counterfactual data 
for studies analysing the impact of these instruments on researchers´ working conditions, 
career  paths  and  mobility  patterns.  By  looking  at  the  high-level  objectives  in  which  the 

335 PPMI, IDEA Consult & WIFO (2019). MORE4 - Support for continued data collection and analysis 
concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, EU Higher Education Report. 
European Commission, DG Research and Innovation. 
336 The wording of the question referring to this in the questionnaire was “Have you obtained 
competitive funding for basic research (based on peer review) from one or more of the following 
sources? Please tick all that apply”. 

233 

 
                                                 
 
MSCA  and  the  ERC  grants  are  embedded,  it  is  possible  to  identify  those  indicators  that 
could be more appropriate for analysing the impact of these instruments. It is at this level 
that analysis of these groups on the basis of the MORE4 survey is feasible (and also more 
accurate). These high-level objectives can be found in the priorities of the H2020337 and 
Seventh  Framework  Programmes338;339.  Table  24  shows  how  these  objectives  can  be 
encompassed  within  broader  dimensions  for  analysis.  Although  these  dimensions  are 
closely related to one another, we will consider them separately for analytical reasons and 
clarity. 

Table 24: Objectives of the programmes and dimensions. 

FRAMEWORK 

TARGET 

HIGH-LEVEL OBJECTIVES 

RELATED DIMENSIONS 

PROGRAMME 

GROUP 

COVERED IN MORE4 

7th Framework 

MSCA 

To restructure the organisation, 

Programme, 

Specific 

Programme 

People  

performance and quality of 

research training 

To reinforce the active career 

development of researchers 

To promote knowledge-sharing 

through researchers between 

sectors and research 

organisations 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Working conditions 

Career development 

Career development 

Intersectoral mobility 

To foster the partnership between 

- 

Intersectoral mobility 

industry and academia  

To increase the participation by 

women and early-stage 

researchers in research and 

development 

7th Framework 

ERC 

To develop “Frontier science” 

Programme, 

Specific 

Programme 

IDEAS 

To promote basic research in 

science and technology 

- 

- 

- 

Researchers´ 

sociodemographic profile 

Career development 

Positive  outcomes  of  high 

quality research in terms of: 

  Working conditions 

 

 

Career development 

International mobility 

To foster interdisciplinary 

- 

Interdisciplinary 

research 

collaboration and mobility340 

337 (2013) Council Decision of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing 
Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing 
Decisions 2006/971/EC, 2006/972/EC, 2006/973/EC, 2006/974/EC and 2006/975/EC. 
338 (2006) Council Decision concerning the Specific Programme ""Ideas"" implementing the 
Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological 
development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) L 400/265 
339 (2006) Council Decision on the Specific Programme: ""People"" implementing the Seventh 
Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and 
demonstration activities (2007 to 2013)L 400/282 
340 Interdisciplinary research, collaboration and mobility tend to be related to different modes of 
interdisciplinarity: interdisciplinary research does not necessarily involve working with others, 
whereas collaboration and mobility are closely related to research teams and working with others.  

234 

 
                                                 
 
Table 25: Dimensions, expectations and indicators 

DIMENSION 

SUB-DIMENSION 

HYPOTHESES DERIVED 

RELATED ITEM OF 

FROM THE OBJECTIVES OF 

INFORMATION IN THE 

THE FRAMEWORK 

PROGRAMMES 

MORE4 SURVEY 

QUESTIONNAIRE 

Profile 

Gender balance 

Higher share of female 

Share of women (per career 

(Inclusion of female 

researchers compared to total 

stage) 

researchers) 

population (control for career 

stage) 

Career 

Training & skills 

Higher levels of satisfaction with 

Share of researchers that are 

development  

training received than in the 

satisfied with the training 

/ 

Working 

total population of researchers 

received in their current 

position (R2,R3 and R4)341 

conditions 

Type of contract and 

Higher shares of researchers 

Share of researchers in each 

duration of contracts 

with more stable working 

type of contract 

conditions than in the total 

population of researchers 

Satisfaction with 

Higher levels of satisfaction with 

Levels of satisfaction with 

working conditions 

working conditions than in the 

working conditions 

total population of researchers 

Mobility 

International 

Higher levels of different types 

mobility,  

of mobility compared to the 

- 

Share  of  researchers  who 

have 

been 

short-term 

intersectoral mobility, 

total population of researchers 

mobile 

interdisciplinary 

mobility  

- 

- 

Share  of  researchers  who 

have been long-term mobile 

Intersectoral 

mobility: 

sectors  and 

top 

three 

motives 

(possibility 

of 

distinguishing  before  and 

after grant)  

- 

Interdisciplinary mobility 

Table 26 shows the characteristics of those researchers who have at some point obtained 
an MSCA or an ERC grant, compared with those of the general population of researchers – 
specifically focusing on gender, current career stage, and the field of science in which they 
work.  Table  27  presents  an  overview  of  findings  with  regard  to  the  some  of  the  main 
indicators of the MORE4 EU HE survey for these two subgroups. 

Table 26: General characteristics 

Gender 

% of female researchers 

36.5% 

Career stage 

R1 

4.7% 

32.7% 

6.3% 

39.5% 

9.9% 

MSCA 

ERC 

TOTAL* 

341 The survey also included questions on training received by R1 and R2 researchers. However, the 
number of individuals in these stages who have received an ERC or an MSCA grant is too small to 
perform statistical analyses and extract meaningful conclusions from them. 

235 

 
 
                                                 
 
R2 

R3 

R4 

NAT 

MED 

SOC 

MSCA 

12.0% 

42.1% 

41.2% 

57.2% 

19.7% 

23.1% 

ERC 

9.5% 

31.2% 

53.0% 

49.3% 

22.1% 

28.7% 

TOTAL* 

14.2% 

45.3% 

30.7% 

39.4% 

24.2% 

36.3% 

Field of Science 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019) 
*The figures for the total population of researchers are weighted according to the procedure presented in the 
MORE4 EU HE survey report. The figures for MSCA and ERC grantees are not weighted, as the survey was not 
designed to obtain representative figures for these subgroups. 

Table 27: Main indicators 

% Fixed term contract 

% of researchers that are very or somewhat confident 

with their future prospects 

% of researchers that have been internationally mobile for 

MORE than 3 months is the last 10 years 

% of researchers that have been mobile for 

LESS than 3 months in the last 10 years 

MSCA 

ERC 

TOTAL* 

20.9% 

13.8% 

20.2% 

88.0% 

93.4% 

82.7% 

37.6% 

22.1% 

26.5% 

34.6% 

29.5% 

31.8% 

% of researchers that have been interdisciplinary mobile 

26.8% 

31.2% 

18.9% 

% of researchers that have been intersectorally mobile 

26.1% 

29.8% 

23.8% 

Source: MORE4 EU HE survey (2019). 
*The figures for the total population of researchers are weighted according to the procedure presented in the 
MORE4 EU HE survey report. The figures for MSCA and ERC grantees are not weighted, as the survey was not 
designed to obtain representative figures for these subgroups. 

In general terms, it can be seen that results across these dimensions for researchers who 
have benefitted from MSCA or ERC grants are positive – bearing in mind all the limitations 
of the MORE data in relation to analysing these questions on this subset of researchers. 
Some dimensions are worth highlighting: 

Gender 

The first dimension refers to gender – namely, the extent to which the MSCA and ERC are 
successful in attracting and retaining women in the research profession. This is one of the 
explicit high-level priorities of the Specific Programme PEOPLE, but it also appears as one 
of the main objectives of ERC grants. The Horizon 2020 programme explicitly implements 
this through its ‘Vademecum on Gender Equality in Horizon 2020’, agreed by the Helsinki 
Group delegates, which set the lines on gender equality and gender balance in research 

236 

 
 
 
teams at all levels, and integrate the dimension of gender into the content of research and 
innovation342.  

From their outset, the  MSCA have  emphasised gender  equality. In line with the Charter 
and  Code,  and  more  recently  the  Horizon  2020  commitments,  they  promote  gender 
equality  through  transparent  recruitment  practices  and  good  working  conditions  for 
researchers  that  (among  other  factors)  integrate  work-(family)  life  balance  into  the 
decision  process  (evaluation  of  proposals,  human  resources  in  project  execution  and 
supervision, decision making in the MSCA Advisory Group), as well as in the content of the 
research itself. The latest MSCA Interim evaluation (2017) indicates that 40% of MSCA-
supported  researchers  are  women  (37%  in  FP7)343.  The  MORE4  EU  HE  survey  results 
indicate that the share of female researchers who have received an MSCA grant in the past 
are at roughly the same level (36%): this share is slightly lower than the overall share of 
women in the population of researchers but the gap (3pp) is not sufficiently large to draw 
any  conclusions  on  the  existence  of  gender  bias.  The  latest  MSCA  Interim  evaluation 
recommended that the Career Re-start Panel be enhanced – for example, in terms of its 
duration – to further stimulate gender equality344.  

With  regard  to  the  European  Research  Council  (ERC),  previous  reports  have  highlighted 
that the share of female applicants to ERC grants has never surpassed 40% since 2007 345. 
Concerned  with  this  gap,  the  ERC  set  up  a  dedicated  working  group  to  monitor  gender 
balance in ERC calls. This Working Group on Gender Balance drafted ERC Gender Equality 
Plans  (2007-2013  and  2014-2020)  with  the  objective  of  raising  awareness  among 
(potential) applicants; improving gender balance among ERC candidates and within ERC-
funded  research  teams;  identifying  and  removing  any  potential  gender  bias  in  the  ERC 
evaluation  procedures;  embedding  gender  awareness  within  all  levels  of  ERC  processes 
(while maintaining a focus on excellence); and striving for gender balance among the ERC 
peer  reviewers  and  other  relevant  ERC  bodies346.  When  looking  at  the  findings  of  the 
MORE4  EU  HE  survey,  a  larger  gap  can  be  seen  with  respect  to  the  share  of  female 
researchers who have benefitted from an ERC grant, compared with MSCA grantees: 40% 
of the population of researchers are women, compared to 33% among the ERC subgroup. 

Working conditions 

Through some of its programmes, the EU aims to raise standards for working conditions in 
the  research  profession  across  the  Member  States.  There  is  some  evidence  that 
participation in MSCA or hosting ERC holders has a positive effect on hosting institutions, 

342 See See European Commission (n.d.). Gender equality. Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-
issues/gender_en.htm. 
343 FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Final 
report: 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/sites/mariecurie2/files/interim-evaluation-msca-
report.pdf  
344 FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Final 
report: 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/sites/mariecurie2/files/interim-evaluation-msca-
report.pdf 
345  https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/Gender_statistics_Dec_2016.pdf  
346  See European Research Council (n.d.) Working Group on Gender Issues. Retrieved from 
https://erc.europa.eu/thematic-working-groups/working-group-gender-issues 
https://erc.europa.eu/thematic-working-groups/working-group-gender-balance  

237 

 
 
                                                 
 
in terms of more open and fair recruitment and career progression procedures347;348. This 
dimension receives more explicit attention in the priorities of the MSCA and the Specific 
Programme PEOPLE, than in the ERC and the Specific Programme IDEAS. However, these 
improvements in working conditions are said to be related to excellence in research quality: 
institutions  are  more  likely  to  be  able  to  attract  excellent  researchers  if  they  offer  very 
good working conditions. Similarly, the degree to which researchers have stable and high-
quality working conditions reinforces the capacity of the EU to attract and retain the best 
talents. Previous studies have shown how MSCA fellowships or ERC grants often lead to an 
improvement in working conditions for most researchers: higher salaries, longer contracts, 
and  the  less  frequent  use  of  stipends  and  grants  afterwards  as  main  or  only  means  of 
earning a living as a researcher349.  

The results of the MORE4 EU HE survey point to an important difference between MSCA 
and ERC grantees: the share of ERC grantees under fixed-term contracts (14%) is lower 
than in the general population of researchers (20%), and among those who have obtained 
an MSCA grant (21%). Similarly, researchers´ confidence in their future prospects varies 
across both subgroups: 93% of current and former ERC grantees consider themselves to 
be very or somewhat confident about their future prospects, compared with 83% of the 
MSCA subgroup (and 88% of the general population of researchers). 

Other studies offer more in-depth information about this, most notably the latest interim 
MSCA evaluation: this study showed that the MSCA programme helps some researchers to 
find  a  permanent  position,  and  that  the  participation  in  the  programme  helped  them  to 
attain a subsequent career stage, or to do so more quickly350. 

International mobility 

International mobility is deeply rooted within the MSCA and ERC, since many grantees or 
fellows cross borders when they receive these grants. Several studies have already pointed 
out  that  the  extent  to  which  researchers  benefit  from  these  grants  is  unequal  between 
countries. For instance, a study on MSCA fellows showed that while some countries were 
net  receivers  of  MSCA  Individual  Fellowships  (UK,  Switzerland,  Norway  and  Denmark), 
others  were  net  providers  (Italy,  Spain,  Poland,  Hungary,  Romania,  Bulgaria  and 
Slovakia)351. However, the distribution of the origin and destination of fellows might depend 
on the type of fellowship or grant. It is important to note, however, that the survey does 
not provide information on whether the  mobility occurred before, during or after having 
been  involved  in  these  research  projects.  Therefore,  inferences  on  causality  cannot  be 

347 (2012). Ecorys. FP7 Marie Curie Life-long Training and Career Development Evaluation: 
Individual Fellowships and Co-funding Mechanism. Final Report. 
(2013). PPMI.  “FP7 Marie Curie Actions Interim Evaluation”. Final report. 
348 This positive impact is in line with efforts relating to European Commission policy initiatives such 
as the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of 
Researchers (https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/charter). 
349 Ecorys. (2012). FP7 Marie Curie Life-long Training and Career Development Evaluation: 
Individual Fellowships and Co-funding Mechanism. Final Report. 
PPMI. (2013). “FP7 Marie Curie Actions Interim Evaluation”. Final report. 
350 FP7 ex-post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Final 
report:  
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/sites/mariecurie2/files/interim-evaluation-msca-
report.pdf 
351 Ecorys. (2012). FP7 Marie Curie Life-long Training and Career Development Evaluation: 
Individual Fellowships and Co-funding Mechanism. Final Report. 

238 

 
                                                 
 
drawn from these data. The MORE4 EU HE survey shows that, while 27% of the general 
population  of  researchers  have  been  long-term  mobile  in  the  last  10  years,  this  figure 
reaches 37% among former and current MSCA grantees. This figure confirms the results 
of  the  2017  MSCA  Interim  evaluation,  which  showed  (via  a  bibliometric  analysis  of  the 
affiliations of MSCA fellows and a comparison group of researchers) that MSCA fellows are 
much more internationally mobile throughout their careers352. The opposite is observed in 
the ERC subgroup, where 22% of researchers indicated having had this type of experience. 
Similar patterns are observed when looking into the patterns of short-term (<3 months) 
mobility in the last 10 years. 

Interdisciplinary mobility 

In spite of the absence of a clear-cut definition of the term ‘interdisciplinarity’, the MORE4 
survey  shows  that  the  share  of  researchers  indicating  they  have  switched  to  another 
(sub)field  of  research  during  their  academic  career  is  higher  among  the  ERC  and  MSCA 
subgroups  (31%  and  27%,  respectively)  than  it  is  among  the  total  population  of 
researchers (19%). However, the latest MSCA Interim evaluation showed large disparities 
exist  between  types  of  MSCA,  with  ITN  being  more  prone  to  engage  in  interdisciplinary 
research than IF grantees. The latter are on average less likely to carry out interdisciplinary 
research than the global average353.  

Intersectoral mobility 

As mentioned above, the MORE4 survey does not allow causality to be established between 
researchers having benefitted from these grants (or worked in projects funded by these 
initiatives) and the intersectoral experience.  However, the  results of the survey indicate 
that  former  and  current  MSCA  and  ERC  grantees  show  slightly  higher  shares  of 
intersectorally mobile researchers (26% and 30%) compared with the general population 
of  researchers  (24%).  These  results  confirm  the  conclusions  of  the  2017  MSCA  Interim 
evaluation,  which  highlighted  the  positive  impact  of  participation  in  this  programme  in 
terms of intersectoral mobility and collaboration354. 

In general terms, the preliminary and partial findings of the MORE4 EU HE survey offer a 
view  that  is  consistent  with  the  high-level  objectives  of  these  funding  schemes.  The 
evidence  presented  in  this  section  is  only  indicative,  however,  as  the  survey  was  not 
designed to obtain representative data for these groups and, hence, the results from these 
analyses  should  be  interpreted  with  caution.  Future  research,  including  specific  surveys 
targeting researchers involved in MSCA or an ERC project, could potentially provide more 
detailed  information  about  the  extent  to  which  these  groups  differ,  and  the  factors  that 
explain these differences.  

352 FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Final 
report:  
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/sites/mariecurie2/files/interim-evaluation-msca-
report.pdf  
353 FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Final 
report:  
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/sites/mariecurie2/files/interim-evaluation-msca-
report.pdf 
354 FP7 ex post and H2020 interim evaluation of Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions (MSCA). Final 
report:  
https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/sites/mariecurie2/files/interim-evaluation-msca-
report.pdf 

239 

 
 
                                                 
 
Future analyses should take into account the differences between individual grants, as well 
as the point in researchers’ careers when the grant or fellowship was received, in order to 
be able to examine the effects of these grants over time. 

240 

 
16.  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 

The consecutive MORE studies are a major step forward in  contributing to the large and 
growing body of relevant research on different aspects of researchers’ careers and mobility 
in European HEIs. This extensive research provides answers for today’s policy makers, but 
also raises new questions regarding the implications and future evolution of the trends and 
developments indicated in the study findings. In this section, a number of questions are 
identified that are of interest for further research from a policy perspective. 

Research to address the research and innovation divide between countries 

The  consecutive  MORE  studies  demonstrate  great  heterogeneity  between  countries  in 
Europe in relation to several aspects of research careers and mobility. The MORE team has 
screened  national-level  initiatives  in  this  final  report  that  can  illustrate  and  inform  this 
discussion. However, specific country-level expertise could be brought in to further 
interpret and refine some of the key findings in this respect. Although this was the 
case in the MORE2 study, it was not retained in the scope of the MORE3 and MORE4 studies. 

In addition, further research is recommended to explore the ways in which the 
research  and  innovation  divide  between  EU  Member  States  and  regions  can  be 
addressed through a mix of EU and national policy interventions, recognising that 
R&I  is  a  competence  shared  between  the  EU  and  Member  States.  Although 
mechanisms for monitoring the performance of research systems and smart specialisation 
strategies have been developed to  provide information about the achievements of these 
strategies,  it  would  be  important  to  assess  their  contributions  to  the  development  of 
national  and  regional  R&I  systems,  particularly  in  less-developed  countries,  in  order  to 
make  proposals  to  inform  the  development  of  the  next  generation  of  programmes. 
Developing measurement frameworks for the attractiveness of national research systems 
on  a  regular  basis  –  similar  to  the  European  Innovation  Scoreboard  –  could  provide  a 
benchmark to stimulate the implementation of policies. Such frameworks could also include 
efforts  to  measure  the  extent  to  which  the  mobility  of  researchers  within  the  EU  is 
symmetrical (i.e. brain circulation) or asymmetrical (brain drain). This should be taken into 
account  in  the  design,  development  and  implementation  of  a  new  ERA  monitoring 
framework,  which  needs  to  be  upgraded  in  2021  to  replace  the  current  ERA  monitoring 
system 2015-2020, and to reflect the priorities of the new ERA. 

In  terms  of  policy  instruments,  research  could  look  at  alternative  ways  of  funding 
researchers – e.g., not through project funding, as in the ERC or collaborative funding, but 
through  institutional  funding.  EU  funding  could  be  considered  for  the  creation  of  new 
excellent  research  universities,  or  to  support  the  structural  transformation  of  existing 
universities aimed at aligning their teaching and research practices with international best 
practice examples. 

Gender:  further  evidence  is  needed  on  the  effectiveness  of  gender-related  policies 
targeting structural change 

Over the past decade and more, significant efforts have been made at EU level and in many 
Member States to implement and  evaluate various gender equality  initiatives.  In the 

241 

 
large  majority  of  ERA  countries,  gender  monitoring  is  already  in  place355.  However, 
programmes  intended  to  promote  the  employment  and  career  development  of  female 
researchers may not always work as well as expected, and structural changes may only 
occur  at  a  very  slow  pace,  making  it  impossible  to  carry  out  a  comprehensive  impact 
assessment of an initiative’s success in a short period356.  

Further attention should be given to evaluating initiatives that lead to structural change, 
and which have a longer-term implementation span and effect (initiatives implemented in 
education systems, promoting the presence of women in leading positions in S&T, etc.). 
This is now even more important, as existing gender inequalities threaten to worsen as a 
result of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis. This development has taken place 
within just one  year, and demonstrates again how deeply rooted  gender inequality is in 
various parts of European societies. A strategy for economic recovery that improves access 
to inclusive, high-quality early childhood care, education and upbringing – which is known 
to  compensate  for  social  disadvantages  –  would  bring  socioeconomic  benefits  in  the 
medium  and long  term,  and  open  up  opportunities  for  women  to  participate  fully in  the 
labour market. 

Further  evidence  on what really drives structural change in the long-run could feed into 
mutual learning exercises and help to counteract the undesirable effects of the COV19 
crisis. Even with better evidence, however, it is unlikely that a ‘silver bullet’ will emerge 
that  will  reduce  gender  equality.  Continuing  and  intensifying  a  broad  range  of 
comprehensive initiatives that include multiple stakeholders appears the most promising 
strategy. 

PhD studies: towards structured PhD training and the greater involvement of industry 

Analysing cost-effective design for structured PhD training is one of the topics on 
which  further  research  is  most  necessary,  particularly  if  support  exists  for  the  idea  of 
gradually replacing the predominant single-researcher model of supervision in the EU with 
structured PhD programmes, and for reducing heterogeneity between European Member 
States in this respect.  

Further  research  could  also  investigate  how  to  more  effectively  integrate  transferable 
skills into PhD training. This relates to the gap found between the increasing importance 
of transferable skills to researchers´ careers, and the relatively low share of researchers 
who have undertaken such training and skills development during their PhD. 

The  differing  prevalence  and  assessment  of  intersectoral  collaboration  and 
industry  funding  at  PhD  stage  across  European  countries  is  another  important  issue 
meriting further research. In general, PhD candidates consider intersectoral collaboration – 
particularly  with industry  –  as  being  of  low  importance.  However,  this  depends  on  their 
future aspirations for their research career. Many intend to pursue a career in academia, 
and are less interested in intersectoral mobility; however, awareness-raising continues to 
be needed regarding the benefits of such mobility, as insufficient numbers of permanent 
researcher positions and academic tenured positions exist within academia, such that many 

355 A screening of the ERA NAPS shows that gender is addressed through many measures. 
356 Grubbs, K.C. & Grubbs, S.J. (2016). Increasing Female Academics in Science in the United 
States: An Examination of Policies. International Journal of Gender, Science and Technology, 8(2), 
279-299. 

242 

 
                                                 
 
researchers will need to explore using their research skills in other sectors. Evaluations of 
cooperative  research  centres  at  national  level  that  produce  PhDs,  such  as  the  COMET 
funding programme by the Austrian research promotion agency FFG, can also shed further 
light on these issues. 

Career paths: unveiling best practices to foster attractiveness 

Research  careers  remain  an  interesting  field  for  further  research.  Among  many  other 
potential  topics,  comparative  analysis  could  further  characterise  the  career  and  higher 
education systems in different countries. This would also make it easier for policy analysis 
to perform best practice and benchmarking studies, comparing like-with-like, and choosing 
suitable policy avenues to address country-specific problems.  

Heterogeneous  national  career  paths  form  a  barrier  to  the  single  market  for 
researchers  (ERA),  even  if  we  recognise  that  heterogeneity  at  institutional  or  country 
level may also be considered beneficial from certain perspectives (e.g. allowing a diversity 
of research topics to be pursued and to enable the co-existence of different approaches to 
the training and skills development of researcher across Europe. 

Convergence  in  the  framework  conditions  for  career  paths  and  structures  could  lead  to 
increased levels of international, intersectoral and interdisciplinary researcher mobility and 
exchange. This should, of course, be driven by convergence towards best practice models. 
Such  best  practice  models  have  been  discussed  in  terms  of  ‘tenure  track’-models,  but 
further research is certainly necessary. 

Moreover,  international  comparative  research  could  look  into  the  determinants 
of  the  differing  lengths  of  early  career  stages,  with  a  long  period  of  contractual 
uncertainty and reduced research autonomy being unattractive to the pursuit of a research 
career.  This  point  also  relates  to  the  relative  scarcity  of  studies  analysing  the  impact  of 
different  types  of  contracts  (i.e.  fixed-term  versus  tenure-track  contracts)  and  their 
suitability for different research frameworks and objectives. 

Further  research  should  therefore  focus  on  those  conditions  that  are  important  to 
researchers.  This  would  contribute  to  the  design  of  effective  policies  that  can  help  to 
improve  the  balance  between  incoming  and  outgoing  mobility,  and  hence  maximise  the 
benefits of brain circulation, as opposed to the ‘zero sum game’ of addressing brain drain 
from some countries, and brain gain in others. 

Working conditions: matching funding schemes to researchers´ motivations and expected 
benefits 

Further research could look into how the working conditions offered by different 
higher education systems (including institutional heterogeneity within countries) 
foster the attractiveness of research careers and of the ERA in general. In general, 
past research has tended to take a more general approach, and has shown that for research 
jobs  to  be  attractive,  both  remuneration-related  working  conditions  (salaries,  social 
security, etc.) and research-related working conditions (the availability of funding, quality 
of peers, research autonomy, time horizons for research etc.) are important. Early-stage 
researchers are, however, particularly willing to move to other countries or institutions in 
search of better working conditions for research, even if the salary is not higher. The results 
of this type of research can also inform EU research funding policies, as the availability of 
research funding is a clear policy lever of EU initiatives. 

243 

 
Further  research  is  also  needed  on  the  interactions  and  interdependencies 
between specific working conditions, with a view to understanding the conditions 
for  attractiveness  and  optimal  scientific  knowledge  production.  Examples  of 
research questions that could be addressed are:   

-  How  do  different  ways  of  allocating  research  funding  (e.g.  project-based  vs. 
institutional block funding) interact with time horizons for research to determine 
the riskiness of the research paths chosen?  

-  How do different funding schemes foster organisational changes in HEIs?  
-  How  does  funding  shape  the  potential  for  intersectoral  cooperation  (see  also 

below)? 

International mobility: analysing brain drain and impact of a changing context 

Long-term, consistent monitoring is important for further research in the field of 
researchers´  international  mobility.  This  could  be  integrated  into  the  new  ERA 
monitoring framework, and feed into the development of a Scoreboard type approach. The 
consecutive  MORE  studies  provide  insights  into  key  mobility  indicators  over  time,  and 
reveal a stable pattern of mobility among EU researchers even within an evolving policy 
framework. The longer term impact of policy changes in reducing barriers (e.g. the pension 
plan for researchers and VISA policy), or of efforts to foster more balanced brain circulation 
within Europe, will only become visible over time. Continued monitoring will provide the 
necessary benchmarks for these kind of considerations.  

To  understand  the  issue  of  brain  drain,  further  research  can  be  done  on  the 
determinants and effects of escape, expected and exchange mobility. The MORE 
studies  shed  light  on  the  drivers  and  barriers  experienced  by  individual  researchers,  as 
well as on the extent to which researchers feel forced to move due to a lack of positions in 
their home country, for example. Further research on the links with the national context 
and  policies  (e.g.  the  openness  and  structure  of  economic  and  R&I  systems,  and  the 
availability  of  public  funding  for  research)  and  on  the  impact  of  structuring  measures, 
would  be  relevant  to  identify  best  practices  and  design  effective  policies  to  foster  brain 
circulation and to adequately address brain drain issues.  

Further research is needed to assess the impact on international mobility of the 
increased focus on digital skills and sustainability, but also of experiences (e.g. 
of  using  digital  solutions)  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  Although  different  in 
nature, these factors may have an impact on mobility behaviour in the coming years, with 
virtual collaboration and mobility becoming more important than before. In this context, 
further research into virtual mobility and on how to implement, measure and assess it, will 
be very relevant in anticipating potential evolutions in research culture and assessment. 
One  important  dimension  to  consider  is  that  virtual  mobility  is  likely  to  be  easier  to 
implement  once  researchers  have  already  developed  a  network,  while  special  attention 
would need to be given to the impact and effects of virtual mobility on early career stage 
researchers.  

Finally,  further  research  can  provide  useful  insights  into  the  extent  to  which 
improving  collaboration  with  non-EU  researchers  could  improve  the  EU´s 
attractiveness. This could entail analysing the consequences of EU researchers moving 
to non-EU countries or collaborating with non-EU researchers, but also the consequences 
of  non-EU  researchers  being  mobile  to  the  EU.  In  this  sense,  the  MORE4  studies  have 
provided evidence to suggest that non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU, 

244 

 
later  maintain  strong  links  with  their  EU  network.  The  role  played  by  the  EURAXESS 
networks in this can be further considered, based on the outcomes of further research. 

Intersectoral mobility and collaboration: impact, best practices and recognition  

We have observed little change in the way researchers perceive intersectoral mobility. The 
MORE studies show that researchers do not perceive intersectoral mobility as one of the 
stronger assets for recruitment or career progression. Research into the determinants of 
this  perception  can  help  to  address  this  gap,  paying  special  attention  to  the  differences 
between sectors and fields of science. It will be interesting to continue monitoring this 
perception  in  the  future,  in  particular  to  see  the  impact  on  researchers’ 
perceptions of the growing attention being paid to intersectoral mobility, as well 
as the importance of multiple career paths, experience in and exchange with industry, and 
cooperation with industry and other actors, etc.  

In this context, further research is also needed into the ways in which intersectoral 
moves could become more valued and recognised in academia. Research could shed 
light on the mechanisms via which this type of mobility could be better valued, the types 
of intersectoral experience (e.g. sectors, contracts, career stages, etc.) and their impact 
on individuals, research output and research institutions. This can be achieved through the 
identification of best practices in which intersectoral mobility is valued and promoted (in 
academia  and  in  other  sectors  –  industry,  the  private  not-for  profit  sector,  public  and 
government sectors) and disseminating this information to the relevant stakeholders. An 
essential aspect that requires further research is how to lower researchers´ reluctance to 
engage  in  intersectoral  mobility,  by  integrating  positive  evaluations  of  relevant 
intersectoral experiences in a more systematic way into recruitment processes. 

Furthermore,  openness  to  the  scientific  and  industrial  communities,  and  even  broader 
openness  to  regional  policy  makers  and  citizens,  will  imply  a  change  in  the  types  of 
skills needed by researchers. They will, for example, increasingly consult these groups 
in their research in connection with societal questions and in translating their research into 
commercial applications. Although the MORE studies have provided first insights into the 
skills  required  and  the  extent  to  which  they  are  provided  and  valued  today  in  research 
training, further research will be highly valuable in following up on this trend. 

Interdisciplinary mobility and collaboration: effects and determinants 

Although the MORE4 survey has shed light on the degree to which researchers working in 
Europe  engage  with  other  disciplines,  further  research  could  look  deeper  and  more 
specifically into patterns of interdisciplinary collaboration and mobility. 

Further  research  needs  to  look  into  the  definition  of  interdisciplinarity  and  the 
aims of this type of approach. While interdisciplinary approaches and mobility might be 
essential to address current societal challenges, they are also important in delimiting the 
discussion about what it is and what is expected from it. This discussion will help to develop 
a clear definition of interdisciplinary research, mobility and collaboration at EU level. The 
integration of STEM, Arts and the SSH (Social Science and Humanities) in research avenues 
and teams could be fostered on the basis of a clear conceptual framework. This approach 
needs to be developed without jeopardising the solid basis of disciplinary research that will 
remain essential in the future. These efforts are currently being promoted in some Horizon 
2020  programmes  (e.g.  through  GOVERNANCE  CSA  actions),  but  support  for  the 
development  of  robust  definitions  that  can  be  applied  across  programmes  would  be 
beneficial. 

245 

 
In  relation  to  intersectoral  mobility,  it  remains  interesting  to  look  into  the 
determinants of differing perceptions regarding interdisciplinary experience. The 
development of policies that aim to foster interdisciplinarity among European researchers 
will  greatly  benefit  from  studies  looking  into  the  barriers  to  these  types  of  mobility  and 
collaboration.  In  addition,  the  impact  on  such  perceptions  of  the  emphasis  placed  on 
interdisciplinary  collaboration  in  the  European  Commission’s  mission-oriented  approach, 
will be interesting to monitor over the coming decade. 

Further research into the effects and impacts of interdisciplinary research could 
further  enhance  understanding,  and  improve  the  ways  in  which  it  can  be 
measured  and  valued  in  research  careers.  It  will  be  interesting  to  investigate 
differences across disciplines and career stages. 

Open Science: expanding the evidence base 

The  MORE4  surveys  included  new  questions  and  options  to  collect  evidence  on  the 
importance of Open Science in Europe. This concept has been developed in recent years, 
and  continues  to  increase  in  importance.  Further  monitoring  of  its  implementation  is 
needed,  as  well  as  research  into  how  researchers  use  Open  Science,  and  the  extent  to 
which they perceive it as having an impact on research practices and careers. Two specific 
areas  that  should  be  monitored  are  the  implementation  of  training  for  researchers,  and 
improvements in the recognition of Open Science practices in research careers – two areas 
in which the EU policy framework has evolved and been further developed in the past few 
years, and where further work is ongoing. 

Continued monitoring efforts: structural and non-structural indicators 

The  MORE  studies  point  to  the  existence  of  a  set  of  more  structural  indicators 
that tend to remain relatively stable over time. Equally, certain other indicators 
show greater volatility over time and therefore require more frequent monitoring 
to efficiently assess whether the objectives of instruments are met. 

-  Examples  of  structural  indicators  could  be  the  shares  of  researchers  with 
experience  of  international,  intersectoral  or  interdisciplinary  mobility.  These 
indicators  are  likely  to  change  slowly  over  time,  and  hence  would  need  to  be 
monitored every three or four years. 

-  Researchers´  perceptions,  e.g.  on  their  career  progression  or  the  degree  of 
transparency  in  recruitment  process,  are  examples  of  more  volatile  indicators 
that should be measured more frequently (e.g. every year) to capture progress 
towards policy targets. 

The results of the MORE4 project, and the evidence available from the comparison with the 
previous MORE studies, confirm the need to build a strong evidence base, and to continue 
monitoring the indicators that relate to researchers’ careers and mobility over time. 

246 

 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

IN PERSON 
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

ON THE PHONE OR BY EMAIL 
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Finding information about the EU 

ONLINE 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU PUBLICATIONS 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by 
contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en) 

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language 
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU. 
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The MORE4 study aims to update, improve 
and further develop the set of indicators 
used in previous MORE studies in order to 
meet the need for indicators over time and 
to assess the impact on researchers of 
policy measures introduced to develop an 
open labour market for researchers. This 
study gathers data to highlight emerging 
policy needs and priorities with regard to 
mobility patterns, career paths and the 
working conditions of researchers. 

The study carries out two surveys: one 
addressed to researchers currently 
working in the EU (and EFTA) in higher 
education institutions, the other 
addressing researchers currently working 
outside Europe.  

Studies and reports