Situation in S&T human resources

At the end of the 90s, it was generally agreed that the main problem of the Spanish S&T system was the low level of R&D investment. While European Governments complained about the gap between the European Union (EU) and the USA , the gap between Spain and the EU average was also significant.

While the Spanish gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was 85% of the EU average, in 2001, Spain had 0.96% of the GDP allocated to R&D, while the EU average was 1.98%; 2 in other words, 48.5% of the EU average. Additionally, there was insufficient expenditure on R&D executed (52.4% in Spain vs 64.5% in the EU average) and financed (47.2% in Spain vs 56.2% in the EU average) by Spanish industry, and very small business expenditure on R&D (BERD) in relation to industrial output.

While the issue of R&D expenditure was the main problem identified in policy documents and public debate, concerns also emerged regarding human resources in S&T and some problems were identified.

Los principales problemas en España en relación a los recursos humanos dedicados a la Ciencia y la Tecnología son:

• Insufficient human resources in R&D (in 2001 Spain had 80% of the average EU ratio of researchers per working population), especially in firms. Researchers in the business sector represented just 23.6% of the overall researchers in Spain versus 49.8% in the EU average.

• Second, in a context of growth in the number of PhD recipients, an emerging mismatch was perceived between the supply of PhDs and the demand for them, especially in some disciplines and S&T specialisations.

• Third, a perception of the precarious state of the public research sector emerged, because some of the statistical increase in the number of researchers had been based on the growth of temporary jobs with low salary positions (fellowship had become the regular labour relationship, even for experienced PhDs). The research labour market presented serious  problems regarding ‘academic career’ opportunities and long-term employment prospects even for PhDs with high quality scientific records. Finally, while the total number of researchers in Spain represents approximately 8% of the EU total, the country had fewer researchers per 1,000 labour force than the EU average, despite showing a significant increase in the last few years.

However, the quantitative improvement in S&T human resources witnessed in the last few years could also be the result of a small change in the methodology of Spanish S&T statistics. In 2001, grant holders (becarios) represented approximately 25% of the total number of researchers, and females accounted for a greater proportion.

The outcome of a gradual process of dualisation in the Spanish labour market for research, whereby the gaps between those who have a permanent position and those who do not have been widening not only in terms of salaries, but also in terms of social security benefits, employment stability and career prospects.

The Spanish labour market for research is not only characterised by a very high proportion of temporary researchers and trainees, but also by the Fac. that the average expenditure per researcher, in purchasing power parity (PPP), in the public research sector (government laboratories and universities) is significantly lower in Spain than in other EU countries .This is not the case in the business enterprise sector. Considering that the labour cost usually accounts for 60% of total expenditure, we could assume that there is also a problem associated with low wages in the Spanish research system, mainly in university and government sectors, in comparison with other countries.

Role of human resources in S&T policies

Las políticas de fomento a recursos humanos en Ciencia y Tecnología en España han estado presente durante las últimas décadas.  A continuación se describen brevemente las etapas de las políticas de recursos humanos.

 It started with research training, in the 60s, as in many other countries, as a decentralised policy under the direct responsibility of the PRCs. PRCs were able to provide grants and fellowships to cover the expenses of the trainees either in a centre in Spain or abroad.

In the 70s, in the context of a financial collapse in the research system (Sanz-Menéndez, 1997) training new scientists and researchers through doctoral programmes became a political objective and research training emerged as a Government policy (Fernández Esquinas, 2002). A very large and centralised

programme (Formación de Personal Investigador (FPI) to train research personnel) was consolidated in the 80s as a mechanism for living grants to thousands of individuals, to pay them a salary or compensation, while they were preparing their PhDs. These grants were a monthly Government subsidy given to young people engaged in dissertation activities. It is worth mentioning that there was a policy tool precursor (re-incorporation contracts) that enabled young researchers working abroad to return to a research job in Spain .

The Ramon y Cajal programme is part of this policy sequence that continued into the early 80s associated with what was called “research training policy”. Over the years, however, the focus of policy has shifted. The specific policy tools and instruments have evolved; new instruments and a change of emphasis have appeared, building up and making the existing portfolio more complex. Government policy has shifted from a simple training or mobility policy to one focused also on employability issues. Over the long run, there has been a swing from simple (individually based) strategies of training researchers (with more or less focus on some priority areas) to actions much more oriented to the objective of researchers’ employability (either in private companies or in the public research sector) as a way of promoting the use and transfer of the R&D

capabilities created .

In Spain , as in many southern European countries, training in research activities has followed a centralised model in which the government acts as ‘guarantor’, while in many other countries, with much wealthier institutions, the research centres and universities develop and implement the research training

policy in a decentralised way.

 In the 90s, regional governments were very active in supporting S&T human resources as a way of creating a highly qualified labour force in their regions.

The actual policy mix that the Spanish Government, through the Ministry of Science and Technology, is managing, includes a combination of different tools and instruments that have been combined and prioritised in different degrees over the years. The Ramon y Cajal Programme was a new type of instrument, whose objectives were ambiguously set out in the National R&D and Innovation

(R&D&I) Plan (2000–2003). The new Plan had defined very ambitious objectives, such as spending 1.29% of GDP on R&D, but no new significant

Budgetary amount was added to the traditional RTD (research, technology and development) budget, and most of the new ideas never got off the drawing board. After a broad participatory process with research actors and users, the Plan was approved including a new policy instrument known as “five-year contracts (+5) for PhDs in public research institutions”: 2,000 such contracts were forecast. This became the policy constraint within which the Ramon y Cajal Programme started to be designed.

En esta tabla se resumen los principales instrumentos utilizados por el Gobierno Español para el fomentar el Recurso humano en Cienica y Tecnología:

Información adicional

Información adicional sobre capital humano avanzado en ciencia y tecnología en España:

Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia – Ciencia y Tecnología

Plan Nacional de Investigación Científica, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica

Sistema Español de Ciencia – Tecnología - Empresa

Human Resources In Science And Technology In Spain: A Review Of The Information Sources (PDF, 118 KB)

Spanish Council Presidency

EL CASO DE LOS PAÍSES NÓRDICOS

Research and Higher Education in the Nordic Countries (PDF, 644 KB)

Durante las últimas décadas las instituciones de R&D y las políticas ligadas a esta actividad han sido similares en los 5 países nórdicos  Dinamarca, Finlandia, Islandia, Noruega y Suecia. Todos ellos han realizado reestructuraciones socio-económicas y han internalizdo en su funcionamiento  la globalización del mercado de la educación junto con la necesidad de crear una sociedad basada en el conocimiento.

Las tendencias internacionales de la educación superior, la ciencia y la tecnología han inspirado las políticas y prácticas de estos países; en particular, tal como aparecen enunciadas y luego desenvueltas en el marco de la Declaración de Bolonia.

Aunque cabe destacar que the Lisbon Target to allocate 3 percentage of GDP to research by the year 2010 has already been accomplished by some Nordic countries. According to World Economic Forum’s annual review of global competitiveness (2004) four Nordic states, namely Finland , Sweden , Denmark and Norway are ranked among the top six for world growth prospects. The leading Nordic performance is attributed to strong macroeconomic management, good legal environments, quick adoption of technology in the private sector and innovation.

Las Similitudes de historias, culturas y condiciones políticas de los países Nórdicos conducen a características similares en investigación y educación superior. Aunque posee también diferencias. Aquí se analiza las características del sistema de investigación de la región y se comparan los modelos de estos países.

A. Public and Private Investments in R&D: Algunas características importantes de estos países

Los niveles de iversión en I&D de los países nórdicos son de los más altos entre los países de la OECD:

·         Sweden with 4.3 and Finland with 3.4 have achieved the highest R&D investments as percentage of GDP worldwide. Denmark , Iceland and Norway spend 2.4, 3.0 and 1.6 of GDP on R&D .

·         The government-financed R&D as percentage of GDP in the Nordic countries is the highest among the OECD countries. Even the share of GDP on R&D financed by industry is highest in Finland and Sweden , second only to Japan . Share of GDP on industry financed R&D is growing rapidly in Denmark (6,4%) and in Finland (4,9%). In comparison corresponding figures for the US and EU-15 mean are 1,4% and 1,3% respectively.

·         Some of the top ten R&D performers in terms of publications and impact in the EU are higher education institutions in Denmark , Finland and Sweden . With regard to technological performance and amount of patents per million populations, Sweden and Finland have achieved the highest figures, much higher than the EU-15 mean of 80, namely 214 and 156 respectively. These countries in 2001 held a third and forth place in the world, following the US (316) and Japan (265). Denmark with 106 patents per million populations held a sixth place.

·         With regard to human resources, statistics reveal that Finland and Sweden attain the highest level of researchers by 1000 labor force in the EU, higher than the US level and subsequent only to Japan. The growth in the total numbers of researchers (1995-1999) was high too, namely 50% in Finland , 19% in Sweden and 16% in Denmark . Even with respect to the number of new PhDs in science and technology per 1000 population, Sweden (1,24), Finland (1,01) and Denmark (0,49) demonstrated higher rates in 2001 than the US (0,41) and Japan (0,25). This implies that there is a substantial reservoir of young people in Scandinavia qualified for becoming new researchers in the knowledge-based economy.

B. Recent Reforms in Research and Higher Education

There are many differences but also some similarities in research policy and reforms in the Nordic region the last several years. University research is currently perceived within the framework of R&D and innovation policy, and quality of results is assessed on the basis of societal relevance of outcomes

Accountability has gained increasing importance. Cooperation with the private sector is given particular attention in all countries in the region. External funding from diversified sources has hence increased considerably. At the same time a higher proportion of research funds are allocated by means of competition while the share of public funding granted directly to the institutions is decreasing. Implications include changes in organizing and distributing funding, and in organizing research environments. A reinforcing of governance, evaluation, benchmarking and assessments of outcomes has been noticed in all countries.

Another trend is greater state intervention in research policymaking along with increased emphasis on strategic planning and government monitoring. A strengthening of the research councils has taken place in Denmark , Iceland , Norway and Sweden creating a more flexible system for funding that encompasses strategic research directions and promotes interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches. New centers of excellence have been established ( Denmark , Finland and Norway ) together with new foundations based on public money ( Denmark , Norway and Sweden ) all of which focus on problem-oriented research programs.

In addition, user oriented postgraduate programs have been launched.

C. Nordic Models: Los países poseen distintas estrategias para fomentar la ciencia y la tecnología

In Denmark , a national higher education and research strategy was introduced in 2003 aimed at strengthening higher education training and research and creating new framework conditions for the science system. At the same time, the university system, the public research institutions and the research councils were reformed to respond to greater socioeconomic demands for enhanced competitiveness. A number of recent reforms have been implemented, including a quality-promoting evaluation system and a quality-based research budgeting model.

The Danish higher education system is characterized by flexibility and life-long learning schemes that facilitate mobility between its different parts. Future challenges comprise the development of institutional structures and the effective functioning of university boards, introduced by the new University Act, as well as improving relations with industry. One key issue is the sustainability of many small institutions in changing framework conditions with increased internationalisation, interdisciplinary approaches and demands on quality development and cooperation with the private sector.

 Another issue involves the need to adjust programmes within the humanities and social sciences (that are the largest university faculties) to better meet labor market demands; currently only 50% of graduates in the humanities and 66% of social sciences graduates successfully enter the labor market upon  graduation.

In addition, Denmark with only one technical university lacks in engineers training too. Compared to Finland that has a polytechnic network of 29 institutions, it is obvious that efforts to enhance engineering in Denmark are required. OECD further points to uniform wage systems and high personal taxes as obstacles to growth in numbers of academics.

The Finnish higher education system is characterized by competitiveness, and is outcome and innovation focused. A “management by results” principle was early adopted in order to increase accountability. Universities have been granted higher autonomy and research councils have been reorganized to better respond to socio-economic demands and nterdisciplinarity. A key issue for the Finnish higher education system is the strengthening of university autonomy and a balanced development of the binary system of universities and

polytechnics. The high level of unemployment in Finland will most likely continue to pose a challenge to higher education policy as well as the great expectations that regional and other stakeholders have on institutions to contribute to socio-economic development. In the future, performance-based funding, taking into account employment rates of graduates will be increase. The education equality principle and lifelong learning approach will continue to be on the research and higher education agenda.

The Icelandic scientific system has remained unitary with many small institutions merging with larger universities. Diversification has hence been limited. However the domination of the University of Iceland is declining, followed by some diversification as other institutions (private as well) enroll an increasing number of students. Also, the research system has recently being reorganized. Major changes include restructuring of the Icelandic Research Council into a science and technology policy council with four ministries on its board.

Moreover, the establishment of two funding agencies, one for research and one for development and innovation, aims to enhance science – industry relations. Traditionally, graduates and R&D staff have been state employees. However, this is changing as the share of public R&D investments is consecutively declining and the corresponding share of the private sector is increasing. The introduction of tuition fees, increasing distance education and lifelong learning schemes are other issues of future concern for higher education policy.

The Norwegian higher education and research system focuses on competence development and coordination. There is currently a reform process in Norway aiming to improve quality, increase institutional autonomy and develop a more result-oriented higher education funding system. Other elements are the establishment of a continuous evaluation system, improvement of students’ financial support and increased internationalisation. The reorganization of the Research Council of Norway, based on an international evaluation in 2000-2001, aimed towards strengthening of long-term research and innovation, user oriented research and interdisciplinary approaches. Reforms met though significant opposition from academia. Meanwhile, demand for higher education seemed to decrease in Norway , resulting in policies meant to stabilize student enrolments on the one hand and consolidate institutional structures on the other. Other key issues in Norway include the need to improve

links between higher education and industry, and to reorganize university boards with greater external representation.

The Swedish higher education system focuses on integration, uniformity and equal distribution. Major changes have recently occurred in the structure of funding – eleven councils and agencies were transformed into three research councils and one research and technology agency. The main tasks of these bodies are to support fundamental research and promote renewal of the science system (giving special attention to young academics) and mobility.

Future issues on the research and higher education agenda include increased decentralization and institutional autonomy, continued quality improvement, increased focus on interdisciplinarity and cooperation with societal agents.

Other topics are further expansion and broader recruitment with respect to social background. The issue of building human resources in academia has to be considered in Sweden as well as the rest of the Nordic countries. Finally, it remains to be determined whether the uniformity of the Swedish system is feasible in the long run - growing differences between the different segments of the integrated system in almost every aspect (institutions, staff and number of students, research and resources) highlights the difficulty of maintaining a uniform system.

Información adicional

Información adicional sobre capital humano avanzado en ciencia y tecnología en los países nórdicos:

Science adn Technology in Denmark

Invest in Denmark

Resolution of the Science and Technology Policy Council

OECD, Policy Mix for Innovation in Iceland (PDF, 463 KB)

Nordforsk, independent institution operating under the Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research 

S&T Indicators for the European Research Area

EL CASO EUROPEO: LA FORMACIÓN EN PROGRAMAS AVANZADOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN (Ph.D.)

Europa: Alto Nivel de Recursos Humanos de la Ciencia y la Tecnología

El Informe Europe needs more scientists (PDF, 3580 KB) elaborado por High Level Group (HLG) 2004, aborda la situación del capital humano avanzado en el área de la Ciencia y la Tecnología  en Europa. Analiza los puntos claves que llevan a formular políticas a nivel de la comunidad europea  para  incrementar la dotación de científicos en Europa.

Since the Lisbon Delaration, heads of state and government across Europe have continued to stress the need to boost substantially the number of people entering science and technology careers. Indeed, at the 2002 European Summit in Barcelona heads of state called for an increase in the proportion of European GDP invested in research from 1.9% to 3%. In terms of human resources, it was estimated that an extra half a million researchers (or 1.2 million research-related personnel) would be needed to meet that goal.

HLG was part of the Commission’s strategy to address the Lisbon EU Summit declaration of March 2000: that Europe should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion.

The HLG was set up to identify specific actions or policy measures which, within the context of the European Research Area, could help towards this goal.

Crisis en la Producción de Recursos Humanos Europea: Principal causa de un cambio de política

In 2001, the number of researchers per 1 000 of the workforce (in full-time equivalent, FTE) was 5.7 for the EU-15 (3.5 for acceding countries). Finland tops the list with 13.77. Between 1996 and 2001, the average annual growth rate was 2.6% for the EU-15 and 2.1% for acceding countries. For a majority of countries, employment in R&D has grown at a faster rate than total employment in the period 1995-2002, but there are large individual differences between the European countries. In the 1990s, the number of researchers per 1 000 labour force increased more than 100% in Greece and Portugal, and over 50% in Austria, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Belgium.

However, those figures should be compared to a value of 9.14 researchers per 1 000 of the workforce (FTE) for Japan and 8.08 for the USA . Only some countries in Europe (Finland, Sweden, Norway) reach that standard and the most populated ones show much lower figures (Germany 6.55, UK 5.49, France 6.55). There is an important margin of progress possible in Europe to increase human resources in R&D.

The Lisbon and Barcelona EU objectives of attaining 3% of GDP for R&D (from the present level of around 2%) will roughly require a minimal level of eight researchers per thousand in the workforce. However, this objective will not be reached within a reasonable time (and certainly not in 2010, as targeted by the EU summits) should the present trends continue unchanged. On the other hand, a clear departure from stagnation or reduced growth rates in R&D employment in Europe will require important changes in the most relevant factors affecting this outcome. Our major concern is to understand how national and European policies may effectively contribute to that ambitious objective.

The number of SET graduates in Europe is higher than in the US and Japan , but the roportion of people aged 25-64 with a university degree is much lower in Europe than in Japan and the US . Europe’s strength is in its younger fraction of the population trained in SET. Europe would be catching up with the US and Japan in terms of researchers by 1 000 workers if employment in R&D were available for young people, if the number of those who choose to study SET was not allowed to diminish, if more women were involved in R&D, and if the southern countries accelerated their SET development. In particular, educational achievement and the rapid reduction of unacceptable, early dropout rates in many European countries will be key policy objectives to broaden the qualification pool for SET professions.

Demanda y Oferta de Científicos: Escasez en la Industria

Es clave para el desarrollo de la comunidad europea poder satisfacer la demanda de científicos en aquellos sectores de la economía donde Europa está en desventaja con respecto a USA y Japón. La política económica de Unión Europea tiene que apuntar en el aumento de nuevas industrias basadas en conocimientos y sin el incremento de científicos en este sector esto es imposible.

The Barcelona EU summit agreed to increase the EU expenditure on R&D to 3% of GDP by 2010. The natural consequence of this is that many more people trained as researchers in SET will be required by that date. From the Commission’s own figures, the extra numbers are in the order of 700 000.

Its important recognizes where this demand is likely to arise and the concomitant implications for the supply side. It has been shown that the largest increases in R&D spending will have to be met by industry. EU industry spending on R&D lags well behind that of its competitors in the USA and Japan . However, increasing the R&D expenditure of existing industries will not in itself meet the target – EU economic policy needs to be targeted at increasing the number of new knowledge-based industries if the industry contribution is to be meaningful. It has proved to be a recondite task to estimate exactly where and in which sectors of the economy the demand will be most keenly felt. In any knowledge-based economy it is prudent to expect the demand to be across all industrial v sectors. This does not ignore the fact that well-established industries will be drawing heavily on new technologies to make their business more competitive in the global market place. In addition, technology and the acquisition of technology has become global over the past few years, and this has given rise to a new paradigm in R&D. Businesses can no longer do it alone – they have to rely on new players in the technology stakes, whether this means exploiting their supply chain, venture funds, academia or inorganic acquisition via start-up companies.

This has led to the death of the concept of the corporate laboratories and corporately funded R&D. In general, they have now become the integrators of technology, not the primary movers in its discovery. This in itself has lead to a new role for universities where, in partnership with industry, they will become the outer ‘radar’ for businesses on new technology.

From a supply perspective, it has been argued that on the present trajectory of increasing the numbers entering SET careers, EU ambitions will not be met. There is a need for a step change in recruitment into SET at all levels. Dramatically increasing the number of women entering SET careers would go a long way towards helping to solve the problem, whereas reliance on importing suitably qualified workers from outside the EU is not sustainable in the long term, given the global nature of the market and the dynamics at play. It should not be forgotten that the EU itself is a source of such workers for other knowledge-based countries.

When this is put alongside the ageing SET population, the growing shortage of teachers, and the ‘greying’ of academic staff, the situation is serious. Only radical solutions are appropriate and must include the commitment to inject large portions of both national and Commission budgets into solving the problem. It is also apparent that this shortage is not felt across the whole of Europe, although it is argued that this in itself is not a steady state and migration to satisfy demand will surely occur. The need for standards in education and qualifications will be necessary if the ERA is to succeed. The Bologna Accord is a start in this process but it will only be successful if it embraces academic competencies and not time served on academic courses.

Poco interés en los jóvenes  para el área de la Ciencia

There is a widely held perception that careers in science, engineering and technology are very unattractive and hold little appeal for young people. This perception covers remuneration, career structure, work environment, status and marketing. From an industrial perspective, these perceptions appear not to be true (although more evidence across all European countries is probably needed). Remuneration of SET workers is in the upper quartile of professions, and the sustainability of remuneration is shown to hold for at least 11 years into their careers. It is also true that unemployment amongst holders of SET tertiary education qualifications is lower than that of the population at large. The diversity of careers for people with an SET background is shown to be great and probably far more varied than in any other sector. Taking all these aspects into account, it is difficult to understand why there are such difficulties with recruitment.

The conclusion has to be that industry and the professions are not selling careers in SET in the most attractive fashion, which is certainly an area for future attention.

Despite the risk from employment uncertainties – an aspect that must be true for every sector of the economy these days – industrial careers are shown to contrast with careers in academia and the public sector. Remuneration in the public sector is poor and career structures are not conducive to attracting both the quality and quantity of qualified people that are required.

Although there are other aspects of employment that do attract people to this section, these are not enough to tip the scales in favour of large numbers of people wanting to enter these professions. This is certainly an area that needs the full spotlight of national and European policy to be directed towards it as there are serious deficiencies now that must be remedied.

There is a general conclusion that the main emphasis on closing the 3% gap lies mainly with industry, so industry needs to promote careers in a more attractive way to prospective SET employees. However, it is not a job for industry alone. National governments, as well as the Commission, have a significant role to play and it is only through a coordinated approach that the problem can be solved. Good, well-remunerated, attractive careers in the public sector and academia need to be in place and marketed as such to future generations if the entire ERA and knowledge-based economy are to be fully realised. This is absolutely key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of the European zone.

Educación superior: La bases para el incremento de la  investigación

There is a need for higher education institutions to shift their scope and mode of operation from preparing experts for an industrial society to educating reflective personnel capable of contributing towards meeting the needs of a knowledge society. For instance, instead of presuming that all their SET students are headed for academic careers, universities should cater for and celebrate the whole range of research employment, including the relatively less prestigious jobs that many of their graduates will actually be taking. Curricula should explore the cultural and societal relevance more explicitly, and should reflect current societal SET needs more directly. Important job skills for all employment sectors include writing, oral presentation, management, data analysis, project design, critical thinking and collaborative work, and the ability to handle uncertainty in an interdisciplinary context. Research training, in association with and opening into industrial R&D, might also take the place of doctoral and postdoctoral programmes for many graduates. Full access for women, ethnic minority and disadvantage groups to courses leading to research careers should be further emphasised. The involvement of undergraduate students in research activities as a normal part of their curriculum is still very limited. Opening research laboratories and industries to the undergraduates in SET would promote a more realistic perception of research by students and could effectively contribute to increasing human resources for SET rapidly in Europe.

Educación para la ciencia, ingeniería y tecnología

Es de crucial importancia el fomento de las ciencias a los comienzos de la etapa escolar de los niños.

Most European countries have comprehensive and compulsory education, starting at the age of six or seven and lasting nine to ten years. In most countries, there are rather few curricular options and choices of subjects at this level. At these levels, the overall purpose of schooling is of a general nature: to develop the student, both individually and socially, and to develop competencies, knowledge, skills and attitudes that are deemed by each country to be important for future citizens. The details are most often laid down in official national curricula that give particulars on aims as well as on subjects and more specific contents, exams and assessment, etc.

In most countries, but to a varying degree, science is already taught from the primary level, and is compulsory at the secondary level. Some countries teach science as one integrated subject all the way through the compulsory school (and even further, e.g. Norway ). Other countries organise their science curricula through separate sciences (e.g. biology, chemistry, physics), at least at the secondary level. There are interesting variations in the way science is 'packaged' and organised in schools in Europe, and one might learn much from sharing such experiences. Technology is, to an increasing degree, part of the curriculum for the compulsory school – in some countries (like Sweden ) as a separate subject, in other countries as a part of a more broadly defined science subject. There are, however, wide variations as to how technology is defined and framed in the curriculum. In some countries, it is learning about tools and simple technical devices; in others it is defined as modern ICT (Information and Communication Technology). In some countries, technology is about simple experiments and making and constructing things 'that work'. Other countries (like the UK ) use the term ‘Design and Technology’. This variation makes simple comparisons difficult, but might be a source for learning from others' experiences.

Students' choice of subjects, according to their own will, plans, ambitions, values, etc., takes place at various levels in the different countries. Some have specialisation (and selection) at an early age; others postpone streaming as well as subject choices to a much later age. The experiences with such systems of choice might be a source for learning from others’ experiences. Statistics also show that the percentage of students opting for SET subjects varies strongly between countries. These differences between the countries are of course also taken further up into the tertiary level, and indicate the importance of looking carefully at how and why students choose school subjects as they do.

The choice of school subjects often results in a gendered pattern, where some subjects become boys’ subjects, while others are dominated by girls. The resulting gender pattern is stereotypical, but