Accelerating the Best Use of Technologies

Expected Outcome:

At a general level, the project should achieve a strong, visible and recognised impact in scaling, facilitating and accelerating research and analytical efforts focussing on the information environment and information integrity.

The main outcomes of the awarded project will be:

• The technical solutions created or supported
• The insights generated from supported research and monitoring projects
• The proof of concept and lessons learnt for the support of shared infrastructures to support research on the information environment

Project applications will formulate their own deliverables in accordance with their needs analyses and proposed means to address them. At the minimum, deliverables should include:

• A suite or network of solutions capable of addressing Specific Objectives 1 and 2 (c.f. section 2 ‘Scope – Specific Objectives 1 and 2’)
• A methodology and dissemination plan for creating access to the created resources (c.f. section 2 ‘Scope – Specific Objective 3)
• A sub-granting methodology in line with the scope set forth in the section above (c.f. section 2 ‘Scope – Specific Objective 5’)
• A final report detailing lessons learnt and identifying clear paths for future actions

Objective:

The overarching objective of this action is as follows:

Creating a common research framework with the necessary infrastructure to enable advanced research and analysis on information integrity in the EU.

In order to achieve this overall objective, the action rests on the following specific objectives:

1. Securing or setting up necessary infrastructure, comprising both hardware and software capacities, needed for advanced research on information integrity, that can be accessed by third parties across the EU
2. Supporting, acquiring or creating a set of dedicated tools to facilitate research on information integrity and the analysis of information manipulation
3. Making the dedicated tools and computational capacity accessible to researchers and civil society, where needed through a transparent and effective access mechanism, and promoting its solutions in the relevant communities
4. Contributing to the DSA’s data access regime by collecting views from the research community on the data access API’s of very large online platforms required by the DSA, documenting best practices and shortcomings, and representing the research community in efforts to improve the capability of API’s
5. Set up and implement a grant structure to distribute funds to third parties from the research and civil society communities, funding as the eligible activities:

• Third party tools or capabilities that support the delivery of Specific Objectives 1 and 2
• Research projects that utilise the outputs established under Specific Objectives 1 and 2

Scope:

Applying consortia must convincingly detail how they will achieve the objectives and deliverables set forth in this call for proposals.

Proposals must be clearly and well-defined, researched and fully developed taking all time-schedule and budget considerations into account.

This action is a grant for financial support, which foresees both the delivery of a set of actions by the awarded consortium co-funded at 100% as well as the distribution of a majority of the funds to third parties based on fair and transparent selection criteria (c.f. section 6 ‘Eligibility – Eligible Activities’). Proposals must allocate at least 60% of their proposed budget to the financial support to third parties.

The below details the scope for the activities of the consortium, as well as for the provision of grants to third parties. Two important, cross-cutting considerations apply to these descriptions on scope:

Firstly, all provided examples for concrete means of implementation should be considered as indicative illustrations only, and thus not mandatory elements for grant applications. Rather, applying consortia will need to base their proposals on a clear, evidence informed needs analysis that is centred on the demands from the relevant research and civil society communities. The sophistication of the logical links between needs analysis and activities will form a key part of the evaluation process.

Secondly, proposals should focus on quality over quantity: The proposal of a more limited, but highly impactful set of actions is preferable over spreading resources on an overly wide set of actions that could undermine practical feasibility.

Thirdly, an emphasis on long-evity is essential. Activities should be planned in a manner that caters to the long-term interests and needs of the relevant communities. A focus on elements such as transferability of outputs will be an important part of the selection process.