Track movement and metrics. Sharing data on internal talent mobility and tracking it against a goal is surprisingly powerful. Setting a goal of internal fulfilment at a certain percent is a great first step, but seeing how everyone’s decisions help reach—or fail to reach—the goal offers unprecedented transparency into the process.
Provide transparency into the wider talent pool.
Some business leaders focus on which individuals can or should be considered for new roles based on their own direct . In global comparison the United States hosted the largest foreign doctoral population. The
top four European destinations for doctoral graduates are the UK, France, Spain and Italy.
These four European countries host at least two thirds of foreign doctoral students from all
major regions of origin. Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Ireland
also have good positions to attract talented peoplefrom other countries.
9. In comparison to American research institutions only few European research labs are
important meeting places for emerging fields of science. Grantees programme launched by the
European Research Council try to make more attractive best performing European institutions
for young researchers.
10. Industry-academia collaboration with foreign partners is very limited in Europe as we
consider either collaboration with partners across Europe or with partners outside Europe.
Analysis of Researchers’ Mobility
4
Only innovative firms from the Nordic countries andsome small European economies tend to
collaborate frequently with partners abroad.
11. EU programs and national programs back up each other to achieve a real ERA and a
single market for researchers that can improve the previously summarized situation of
international mobility. The successful build-up of the European Research Area strongly
depends on how Member States are realizing it in their national legislation, actions, and
budgets to fulfil the common European goals. It maybe stated that the majority of national
programmes are more quantity than quality based. The countries wish to attract more well
educated, highly skilled people and are paying less attention to get the best highly skilled
ones. Only a few programmes are focusing directly on the best and most appropriate
researchers by the programme screening.
12. A comparable source of INNO-Policy Trendchart annual reports / ERAWATCH network
provided some limited opportunity to extract information on the mobility-related measures
introduced recently in EU27 countries for researchers and/or doctoral students.
13. Most national measures are focusing on geographical(physical) mobility of researchers.
In this category the programmes supporting the inflow of foreign researchers or creating
favourable conditions for returnees are in majority and only some of the programmes are
supporting the outflow of HRST. In some of the cases countries determine spatial limitations
to these programs to express preferences for certain geographical regions.
14. In a smaller number of cases policies are focusing on sectoral (intra- and inter-sectoral)
mobility to enhance knowledge diffusion but only a part of these measures involve
international mobility.
15. The virtual mobility may be observed as an additional tool in research collaboration
programmes but only two Nordic countries’ programmes are focusing directly on virtual
mobility.
16. All programmes are open for women but they do not particularly encourage women to
participate. There are hardly any support schemes that take into account their special situation
and programmes that would offer solutions to increase the participation of women in the
labour market and in HRST mobility are scares too.
17. Further efforts are needed to support the attractivenessof certain regions of the EU for
researchers and to shift from brain drain/brain gain towards brain circulation.