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

which members of a society orient their action and which are a kind of software for operating interfaces between actors (e.g.
EU Member States) and overarching structures (i.e. European institutions for security research coordination and governance).
The cultural key to the functioning of such interfaces is seen a system of symbols that is fl exible enough to refl ect and adapt to
new threats and challenges. A seminal author is Robert Wuthnow. For example, a country that has a security culture centred on
prevention and foresight as the symbol for security will have normative diffi culty to engage in security research coordination
centred on response/reaction and to accept topics such as civil protection as elements of a European security (research) agenda.
A fourth school (model IV) conceives of culture as action repertories, that is individual (or proprietary), experience-based
strategies associated to individual attributions of meaning and normative convictions. This concept is strong in explaining
how existing strategies and courses of action may determine which policy goals are developed or met, rather than strategies
and courses of action being allotted to defi ned goals. A seminal author is Ann Swidler. Applied to security research governance
analysis, cultural factors defi ned in terms of action repertories may best explain why EU Member States adapt diff erently to
similar security threats and may also implement commonly defi ned security capabilities plans and research coordination
strategies in divergent ways. Coordination for example may be implemented by Europeanization (development of or adherence
to common standards on the EU level) or by a national joined-up interagency approach.
The four approaches/models can be classifi ed along to two axes, as shown in annexes as
Table: Four models of analysis of cultural factors and examples from the fi eld of security research governance
Culture as a factor in the perception/defi nition of threa
vs.
Culture as a factor in the response to threat.
and
Cultural factors infl uencing the thematic thrust of national security research programmes (e.g. prevention/preparedness vs.
reaction/response; technology vs. society)
vs.
Cultural factors infl uencing the national approach to security (research) governance (e.g. national inter-agency coordination
vs. international standardisation).
WG 10 fi ndings have, as noted in the introduction, revealed the following gaps and need for coordination:
Building potential for a comprehensive approach at the national level
Building potential for a comprehensive approach at the European level
Overcoming the lack of a comparable set of security strategies and approaches to security governance (coordination vs.
standardisation), including the improvement of coordination of national security research and foresight activities with
European-level research programmes
Overcoming the split in thematic thrust (society vs. technology), with a tendency to favour technological solutions to
security problems)
10.3.1.4 Assignment of Evidence for each of the Four Big Cultural Factors (models I-IV) per country to the Four Identifi ed Gaps/Challenges
In matrix 1 of the attached analytical sheet (annex IV, annex 2), these identifi ed gaps and coordination issues are associated with
cultural factors according to the four models identifi ed above. Within each model, evidence for each of the four big cultural
factors (model I-IV) per country is assigned the four identifi ed gaps/challenges listed on a country basis. This country-related
information comes from the precedent comparative country analysis reported in the “Mid-term Threats and Challenges” paper as
well as from preliminary results of the collaborative project “Changing Perceptions of Security and Interventions” (CPSI) from the
FP7-SEC-2007-1 call.
“+” in front of an entry in matrix 1 means that the respective political/structural/cultural facture is conducive to meeting the
respective challenge/narrowing the respective gap.
215