Green EU Deal proposals: two rejected, one to go

Hello all, the two proposals ATSI and EURENDA have both been rejected, despite good evaluations (especially the first one). The evaluation reports are available in the respective project folders on Drive. We are still awaiting the evaluation of 3CN.

Focusing here on EURENDA (we already discussed ATSI), the parts of the proposal where Edgeryders was involved seem to have elicited mostly good comments:

The disciplines involved include political and social sciences, philosophy, economics, IT, anthropology, and territorial planning. Various researchers and practitioners with participation and deliberation expertise focus on climate issues and are active at various scales, which demonstrates interdisciplinarity. Public engagement, including stakeholders’ knowledge and inclusion of marginalised societal groups is an intrinsic part of the proposal.

Open science and open access are addressed adequately. A data management plan covers knowledge management, the required standards, as well as quality assurance and IPR, which is good.

In the end, this project had identity problems:

It is not sufficiently clear whether the EURENDA’s ‘network of networks’ focuses on the GD or improving democracy.

and there was nothing we could do, because we had no control over the vision.

Oh well. Back to the drawing board.

In the meantime, we found out that 3CN was also rejected. Evaluation letter on the Drive.

Total score above the threshold. Some of the shortcomings:

the proposal does not satisfactorily explain how broader institutional
conditions (e.g. economic) can enable and facilitate behavioural change. The role of marginalised groups is also not sufficiently clear.

the methodologies fall short of providing robust guidance on how
the conceptual framework contributes to design of experiments, how they address participants’ self-selection bias, and how they will lead to behaviour change.

The proposal does not provide a sufficiently clear concept of climate neutrality (individual, collective, or system level) and how the interaction with non-scientific groups will be designed. It discusses structures, although biophysical structures are

one more specifically for us:

whilst ethnographic studies are informative for understanding barriers to behaviour change, the proposal offers limited information on their applications.

and finally:

the proposal falls short on providing a clear approach on how to measure lasting behaviour change following the interventions in the medium to long term. The full impact of behavioural change, including trade-offs, side and rebound effects are not well explored.

@amelia @hugi any thoughts?

We had this in the proposal, but it was cut by someone else because the proposal was over word count…

I think the score was high for what felt to me like a not entirely robust set of experiments described too vaguely/not academically enough (I said this to Marina during the process, and that I was suspending judgement because of the great track record of our lead partner). I think the writing we were able to do for the proposal can be used for your future proposals – and perhaps, as they suggest, the proposal could be resubmitted for a different (less competitive, more defined) call.

1 Like

this is too often our problem…

So, ATSI got 12.5, EURENDA and 2CN got 11. No point saying we need to do better, since we had no direct control over the proposals. Oh well.