I527-290 ESRIF Final Report (WEB).indd - European Commission

10.3 Findings & Gaps
This section presents the real situation of “Governance and Co ordination” based on the assessment of Member States’ policy
and practice.
The ability (or lack thereof ) to develop a shared understanding of Security, to overcome traditional national interpretations
and frameworks for assessing security problems and solutions, and the existence (or lack) of a political cognitive construction
(conceptual frame of reference) of a common European security space is the strongest political/structural/cultural factor that
explains for a country:
The potential (negative and positive) for a comprehensive approach at the national level
The lack of potential for a comprehensive approach at the European level
The success or failure in overcoming the lack of a comparable set of security strategies and approaches to security
governance (co ordination vs. standardisation), including the improvement of co ordination of national security research
and foresight activities with European-level research programmes
The success or failure in overcoming the split in thematic thrust (society vs. technology), with a tendency to favour
technological solutions to security problems)
These fi ndings support the assumption that the development of a shared understanding of the concept of security is
generally at the core of security research governance and co ordination. It also means that security research governance and
co ordination founded on structural similarities can be disrupted by lack of a shared understanding of the concept of security
or, for example, diff erent strategies to give political meaning to technical questions of security.
10.3.1 Cultural Factors associated with Security Research Governance Gaps
10.3.1.1 Scope & Objective
This study provides an analysis of national cultural/structural/political factors which are associated the following status and gaps
in EU Member States (including one non-member but FP7 participating state) security research governance; the identifi cation
of these is among the fi ndings of previous analyses undertaken in the framework of ESRIF Working Group 10:
Maintaining European security is complex and requires a comprehensive approach both at national and European level
EU Member States’ governments do not have a comparable set of security strategies or priorities to address adequately the
current security challenges Europe faces
National security research and foresight activities are not adequately coordinated with the European-level research programs
resulting in gaps and overlap between activities
There is a split in approaches to security governance (coordination vs. standardisation) and a majority focus on technical
solutions to security problems
Political factors, even beyond typical political culture, are often associated with cultural factors: National perception styles
determine which issues are seen as security relevant and where legislation and/or development of national capabilities to
meet challenges is necessary; culturally embedded norms aff ect countries’ approaches to the development security solutions
(national, pooled or common European capabilities); culturally rooted values attached to the concept of the nation state
determine to which extend national research policy is open to international standardisation or is in contrast concentrated on
national coordination of relevant domestic bodies and agencies; etc.
10.3.1.2 Methodology
The methodology applied here rests on the “cultural theory of risk” (e.g. Mary Douglas/Aaron Wildavsky: Risk and Culture (Berkeley,
CA et al.: University of California Press, 1982). This theory assumes that diff erent perceptions and disputes about risk and security
can be linked to competing worldviews: conceptions of risk, security and solutions to security problems vary according to the
organization of political and social relations. Risks and security threats are selected as important because this reinforces established
interpretations and relations within a culture, thus reproducing the symbolic foundations of a community. Among other “texts”
213