Some reference numbers from past Marie Curie-RISE projects

Calling @marina @amelia and @chiara.certoma.

I downloaded the CORDIS database and reference data and did a bit of Python and Pandas digging. I found 508 MC-RISE projects in 2014-2020. Here’s what I learned:

  • Average size 1 million. Sizes vary from 0.1 to 3.3 million, with most projects between 0.5 and 1 million. Histogram below.
  • 350 were funded at 100%, the other 158 had some kind of co-funding. Average EC funding for the 158 is 83% of their budget.
  • No correlation between budget size and quota of EC funding.

image

2 Likes

@martin how well do you know these calls? We might have some questions for you on how to best shape the proposal. Some background on this is here. It’s for next year, but we are preparing early :slight_smile:

Hello @marina - I know little about them. Traditionally MCSA were much academy focused. That was considered to be a weakness and therefore ambitions were high to reach out to new communities. I expect that it will be key: what can edgeryders teach (=what does the academic fellow learn). Best regards, Martin

2 Likes

Thanks @martin, these calls are academic indeed but this is not necessarily a problem as we are thinking about a MSCA Staff Exchange project in which Edgeryders partners with universities.

Very very useful. Thanks Martin.

The answer could be: using SSNA with graphryder, no?

Yes, generally speaking that would be it. But SSNA writ large, not just the data part.

Ok.

Option A:
I am not an expert of coding or any technical aspects.
I only tried to see how we can use SSNA with graphryder for investigating urban innovation governance because this is my research area. I imagined how my university (and potentially others) can exchange competences while working together with Edgeryders. In this case, I am writing the project myself with colleagues from other universities. Can I include Edgeryders as potential collaborator in the data-collection and analysis phase (despite reductive, it’s feasible for me)?

Option B:
If you are interesting in advancing a proposal more focused on the technical aspects, I proposed to re-work some elements of EPICS, I cannot write it myself. Should you (I’m particularly referring to @Amelia, @Marina and @Alberto who were in the last meeting) be able to co-write it with me, I am available to discuss the aim, content and methodology in detail.

1 Like

I heard today from the Agency for the Promotion of European Research in Italy. No information yet about the dates of Horizon Europe calls, and -more importantly, @amelia - no information about whether the UK will be considered as Third or Associated country. In both the cases UK partners’ should be eligible in Staff Exchange projects.

1 Like

Should we shoot for option B, @amelia and @marina?

Sure, I can contribute!

Ok, thanks @amelia.
If @marina and @alberto agree with option B, too, I will try and give a start to this (e.g. sketching an overall project architecture in which other partners’ competencies - including my own :grin:!- can be accommodated). Should you have alternative proposals, happy to consider them.

2 Likes

Yes, Chiara, we agree.

Ok, my plan is to post you something by the end of next week (if no academic emergencies will impede me to do so …)

1 Like