Bonus EEIG
BONUS logo E-bulletin Contact us
BONUS 2010-2016
About BONUS
BONUS Secretariat (EEIG)
Steering Committee
Members
Advisory Board
BONUS Forum
Forum of Project Coordinators
BONUS+ and ERA-NET
BONUS+ 2009-2011
BONUS+ projects
BONUS+ background
BONUS+ reporting and change requests
BONUS ERA-NET 2003-2008
Frequently asked about BONUS
Young Scientist Club
BONUS projects
For policymakers
For researchers
Events
News room
Publications
Policy and other links
For members of the public
BONUS Extranet login
Print page
Front page > About BONUS > BONUS+ and ERA-NET > BONUS+ 2009-2011 > BONUS+ background > Feed-back form for Principal Scientists

Feed-back form for Principal Scientists


This questionnaire is a part of the BONUS+ Mid-Term Assessment. Its purpose is to check if the projects are progressing well, and the Programme management mechanisms function efficiently. BONUS EEIG Secretariat will summarize the outcome of this questionnaire and place the summary findings in the BONUS Portal Extranet. This summary will be presented to the BONUS EEIG Steering Committee and will serve for the improvement of the Programme work. Your input to this questionnaire will also help us to better prepare the coming BONUS Calls.


This form is specifically addressed to the Principal Scientists.


The filled-in form must be sent to the Secretariat before Saturday, 8 May 2010. You are kindly requested to answer all the questions, even if negative, in order for us to be sure of no information omissions.


Please note that the questionnaire can not be saved for continuing later on, but  needs to be completed in one session.


 

Your organization and Internal Management of the Project

Your name:
BONUS+ Project acronym and web page:
Institution your team represents:
Country:
How many people in your institution are involved in this BONUS+ Project?
Is there a collegial body - a Project Steering Committee or alike established in your Project?
If YES, are you a member of this body?
If YES, how many times have you participated in the meetings of this body since the beginning of Project?
How, according to your judgement, the coordination and management of your Project perform?
If you wish, please comment, especially suggestions on how to improve:

How many Project meetings have you attended since the beginning of the Project?
Please describe how the internal Project team at your institution is coordinated and managed:


Role of Your Institution in the Project

In how many Work Packages of the Project your institutions team is involved in?
Please specify in which Work Packages:

Is your institution’s team leading any of the Project’s Work Packages?
Please, specify:

Do you consider your institution's team in the Project as multi-disciplinary, or is the multi-disciplinarity achieved mainly by means of collaboration of various institutions participating in the Project?
Have your institution’s team members participated in any joint scientific activities arranged within the frames of the Project?

If YES, please attribute these activities to the categories below (approx. num. of cases):

-   Joint cruises or other field work;
-   Joint experimental work;
-   Sharing the collected samples;
-   Sharing your data with other consortium members;
-   Receiving from another consortium member data necessary for your part of the work;
-   Analysed samples for another consortium member;
-   Joint personnel training;
-   Joint data analysis sessions;
-   Joint manuscripts;
-   Other type of collaboration (please specify and approx. num. of cases);


Progress of Work

Does, according to your judgement, the Project work in your institution’s team generally evolve at the planned pace?
Please, comment on deviations from the plan (if any):


Training and personal capacity building

What is the proportion (~%) of the early career scientists in your institution’s team? (We define them as Scientists in the final year of their primary degree, or PhD Students, or Scientists in their first two years of first Post Doc).
In which personal capacity building activities arranged by BONUS EEIG or any BONUS+ Project your institution’s team members have already taken part in?
Your suggestions for further improvement of the BONUS support to young researchers:


Collaboration with National Funding Agency and Reporting

Which National Funding Agency supplies funds covering your institution’s participation in the BONUS+ Project?
Are you required to supply a separate scientific report to the National Funding Agency?
What other kinds of the involvement by the National Funding Agency your institution’s BONUS+ team have experienced since the beginning of Project?
Have you received any support from the BONUS National Contact Point?
You may wish to specify:


What kind of support you would expect from the BONUS National Contact Point?


Which aspects of being affiliated to the BONUS+ Project your institution’s team would judge as the most important? Please tick no more than 5 options.

- access to methodologies and research infrastructures not available at your institution;
- better networking among scientists;
- more funding for research;
- bringing in more multidisciplinarity necessary for achieving your team’s objectives;
- better development opportunities for young scientists;
- access to more data;
- avoiding duplication;
- division of labour among the research teams;
- creative atmosphere within an international consortium;
- higher research quality due to application of international selection and higher demands;
- better opportunity to publish in high-ranking journals;
- better visibility on the national scene;
- better opportunity to produce practically applicable results;
- mobility of scientists;
- more opportunity to find users of your team’s scientific production;
- better popularization opportunities;
- other.
If other, please specify:
Additional comments, if necessary. In case, e.g. if you are generally disappointed with your team’s participation in the BONUS+ Project.
Did you or any of the Project team-members in your institution ever use the BONUS EPSS to submit a report?
If YES would there be any comments on using the BONUS EPSS as a reporting medium? Comment, if necessary.


Stakeholder Activities

Does your Project’s research plan contain any specific stakeholder involvement?
If YES, does your institution’s team have any specific responsibility in your Project’s stakeholder activities?
If YES, please specify:


Would the product(s) of your institution’s team in the BONUS+ Project be directly applicable by the potential user(s)?


Comment and specify, if necessary:
Did your Project already arrange any stakeholder activity?
If YES, please specify:



If YES, did your institution’s team take part in that activity?


To which of the categories your Project’s

- state governance;
- local governance;
- private commerce;
- NGO;
- other.
If other, please specify:




To which of the sectors your Project’s

- transportation;
- communication;
- energy;
- health care;
- military and security;
- environment and nature protection;
- food and agriculture (except fisheries);
- fisheries;
- regional development and spatial planning;
- other.
If other, please specify:



Would you name any specific entity in your country that already is, or could potentially become a user of your Project’s results?
If positive in the previous question, has your institution’s Project team already established communication with that entity?
What kind, if any, assistance with stakeholder consultation activities you would expect from the BONUS Secretariat?


Science Popularizing

Does your Project’s research plan contain any specific science popularizing activities?
If YES, does your institution’s team have any specific responsibility in Project’s popularizing activities?
If YES, please specify:



Has your institution’s team been already involved in these Project activities?
If YES, please specify:
What kind, if any, assistance with science popularization activities you would expect from the BONUS Secretariat?


The Format of Future BONUS Projects

All BONUS+ projects are similar in format: length up to 3 years, budget ceiling up to EUR 2 million, at least two countries represented.

Would you agree that with continuation of the BONUS Programme, format of projects could become more diverse depending on the specifics of the particular call theme?


If YES, please identify which of the proposed additional alternatives might be the most useful, or describe your own model. (Please tick three most appealing).

- up to one year long assignments for limited number of experts to synthesize knowledge on a particular matter (the typical outcome would be a monograph);
- up to one year assignment for limited number of experts to perform the foresight analysis in particular field;
- up to one year project to elaborate a particular clearly identified applied task;
- fewer but larger projects with higher budget ceiling;
- in addition to the research projects, some projects that would support long-term ecological observation programmes in the Baltic region on parameters not included in the traditional monitoring;
- in addition to the thematic calls, competition for one-few avant-garde awards for total bottom-up projects. The main selection criterion here is innovativeness of the idea;
- projects that would support advancement of the research infrastructures and observation techniques, possibly with SMEs as participants;
- more Programme funding shall be reserved for joint training activities;
- other.
Please describe your proposal for diversification of project format.


© 2012 BONUS Baltic Organisations' Network for Funding Science EEIG Disclaimer Sitemap Poutapilvi web design - P4 - julkaisujärjestelmä