Transcript Folie 1

Research Strategy Development at
European Universities: Challenges and
Opportunities
Dr. Sybille Reichert
Universidad de Barcelona,
6 June 2007
Structure of Presentation
 Why worry about research strategies?
 EUA Study: Background and methodologies
 The challenges for European research intensive
universities
 Their strategies to address these challenges
 Focus on enhancing doctoral training as key
strategic concern
 The process and underlying assumptions of
Strategic Development
Why worry about Research Strategies?
Moving from reactive to proactive attitudes




Identifiying or foreseeing developments
Overtaking average speed of developments
Shaping developments, setting the agenda
In reference to which developments?
–
–
–
–
Scientific
Technological
Market /competitive position
Society and its needs (aging soc., level of education and talent
distribution, energy crisis), global social developments
 Creating attractive research environments
 Inciting new research and prioritising promising
research groups/ areas
EUA commissioned study by S. Reichert on
Research Strategy Development:
Background and Methodology
 Lisbon agenda and competition of knowledge economies
 Trends IV study on implementations of Bologna reforms in Europe
raised question of impact of educational reforms on research profile
and vice versa, and showed that only one third of 62 universities had
a research strategy, only one quarter had one known beyond orbit of
institutional leadership
 EUA commissioned follow-up study focussing on research strategy
development and implementation
 10 European research intensive universities which had research
strategies were visited, interviews with different groups from rector
to junior professors, on reasons for developing strategy, contents
and scope, process and supporting instruments
 Analysed against background of Trends IV and data strategy
management literature
Why do European Universities Develop
Research Strategies?
 Awareness of international competition: research has to be
internationally visible to stand a chance; to be internationally visible
has to be well positioned. One can only be leading in a few areas
 Tougher competition for national resources, from HEA, funding
authorities: you have to strengthen your strenghts and have critical
mass
 National/ regional authorities, funding agencies ask for strategic &
institutional embedding
 Research costs are rising, expensive scientific infrastructure and
competitive conditions means you can only invest in some
 New partnerships require sense of what areas/ strengths you stand
for
 Increased need to emphasise economic/ social relevance of
university research: definition of themes around social problems
The Main Challenges for Research Intensive
Universities in Europe
Challenge1: Closing the gap in scientific production
Challenge 2: Research Training –
Less of a problem with the number of doctoral
degrees
Doctoral S&E Degrees by World Region
U.S. Citizen
75%
All U.S
20.000
70%
Europe
15.000
10.000
65%
Asia
60%
5.000
55%
0
50%
USA
Europe
Asia
% US Citizens
U.S. Citizens and Perm Res
25.000
80%
19
7
19 5
7
19 6
7
19 7
7
19 8
7
19 9
8
19 0
8
19 1
8
19 2
8
19 3
8
19 4
8
19 5
8
19 6
8
19 7
8
19 8
8
19 9
9
19 0
9
19 1
9
19 2
9
19 3
9
19 4
9
19 5
9
19 6
9
19 7
9
19 8
9
20 9
0
20 0
0
20 1
02
S & E Ph.D. Degrees
30.000
… than with researcher career opportunities
… and with the lack of business careers for
researchers:
cf. Distribution of Researchers over Sectors
Doctoral Studies abroad as a first step
towards brain drain
Innovation Gap
Innovation Lag in Spain
Increasing
Need for
International
Skills for
Researchers
inside and
outside of
Academia
How do European Researchintensive Universities address these
challenges?
Strategy development at which level?
 National: research funds, definition of programmes, infrastructure,
framework conditions
 Regional: supporting and networking knowledge institutions
 Institutional: strategic funds for new developments, for attracting
talent, for creating critical mass, enhancing competitiveness and
visibility
 Departmental: identifying promising areas and individuals and
supporting them in their initiatives
 Interdepartmental: building and using the right channels of
communication to allow and promoting res. at exciting interfaces
 Individual: making use of space and resources to develop most
forward looking ideas
Table 1: Overview over national and regional stimuli for strategic development
at universities
Institution  A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
L
ministry has research priorities (national or regional) x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Condition
main national funding authority has research
priorities
national or regional level priorities exert strong
influence on research activities at institution
main national funding authority asks for strategic
priorities from institution
regional and other external public and private
funding agencies want to see strategies
other important funding authority (innovation
oriented) has research priorities
new activities are mostly funded through extra
external funding
majority of research funding comes through external
grants ("third party" or "second source") rather than
through the institutional grant
region plays a significant or strong role in supporting
new initiatives, marked "(x)" or "x" respectively
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
(x)
x
(x)
What do the strategies contain? (1/2)
 Internal procedures/ incentives to reward and
increase quality performance,(often after
evaluation by peers), create attractive conditions
for the best to come
 Prioritised thematic areas in which universities
have outstanding strengths and critical mass:
centres of excellence
 Fostering consortia, larger research
groups/centers to increase visibility, to address
fragmentation through specialisation –
researchers: don‘t force interdisciplinarity
What do the strategies contain? (2/2)
 Technology platforms and enhanced planning/
use of costly scientific infrastructure
 Increase external grant income, enhance of
research support services
 Research and graduate training:
• Number of PhD students, number of post-docs
• Internationalisation of graduate offer, joint degrees, programmes
in English
• Quality of graduate training, from mentoring to integration in
graduate schools
Example:
Strategic Aim to Enhance the Quality of
Doctoral Training – the number one reform
issue all over Europe
Example Doctoral Training:
Factors hindering attractiveness of doctorate
training
 length of doctorate studies:
– delayed entry into labour market and professional life
– delayed individual economic/social returns
– uncertainty regarding successful completion, attrition rate
 Varied quality of supervision and high degree of dependence on
supervisor
 specialisation – little attention to career prospects and frequent
labour market mismatch, not enough attention to subjectspecific and transferable competences and skills
 Insufficient recognition of worth of doctoral degree among
employers
 lack of funding and social security
 personal/family dependencies and effects
 isolation academically and sometimes socially
The most frequently mentioned aims of
the doctoral reforms in Europe
 Enhancing quality (supervision, mentoring,
support, financial and framework conditions,
duration)
 Increasing relevance and career attention in
view of diversified research-based career paths
(UK, Ireland, Sweden) – competences and
skills
 Linking doctoral training to centers of research
excellence (with sufficient critical mass)
(Finland, Netherlands, Germany)
 Increasing interdisciplinary and social
integration
First and foremost:
Enhancing Quality of Graduate Supervision
 Supervisor supplemented by team, additional contact points,
possibility of complaints, peer pressure among professors
 Ensure appropriate research expertise
„At least one member of the supervisory team will be currently engaged in
research in the relevant discipline(s), so as to ensure that the direction and
monitoring of the student's progress is informed by up to date subject knowledge
and research developments.“ (UK Code of Good Practice)
 Ensure appropirate advisory (pedagogic) ability
„All supervisors need appropriate expertise for their role. They will wish, and
institutions will require them, to engage in development of various kinds to equip
them to supervise students.[…] Institutions will expect existing supervisors to
demonstrate their continuing professional development.“ (UK Code of Good
Practice)
 Responsibilities and expectations of supervisors and doctoral
candidates clearly communicated through written guidance/
contract and in the induction process
Building Graduate or Doctoral Schools
 Long debate in Germany, Nordic Countries
(since early 90ies), with new structures being
introduced through funding agencies
 Mixed aims:
– support and better integration of research perspectives and
opportunities for exchange
– Higher degree of selection, transparent recruitment and admission
criteria
– Link to research profile of institution, method of institutional positioning
 Different models and aims (doctoral
programmes vs. PhD programmes with Master
phase integrated),
Different Types of Graduate Schools
Type of Graduate School
Primary aims
Thematically
focused Graduate
School/
Graduiertenkolleg/
Research School
Faculty-based or
interfaculty
Graduate School
Promotes subject-specific often interdisciplinary excahnge,
D, NL
Promotes excellent research environments in key areas of
institutional strengths,
Increases
international
visibility
and
attraktivität/
Rekrutierung im Ausland
Promotes interdisciplinary exchange,
Common offer of soft skills training and support services in
cognate disciplinary cultures,
synergies through common administrative functions
(admission, recognition of foreign degrees, financial admin.,
quality assurance)
Administrative and social roof for research training, incl.
Institutional
Graduate School support Services, coordinated offer in „transferable skills“
Lobbying and respresentation of research training issues at
institutional and national level
Creates critical mass in a given area, enhances subjectInter-institutional
Graduate School/ based exchange, increases international visibility, enhances
Doctoral School/ national coordination and complementarity of the offer in the
field
Research School
Frequent in:
GB, US,
D
GB, US
NL,
Finland
Crucial: Enhancing relation of researh training to
institutional profile and internationally visible
research strengths
 Addressing controversial issues of critical mass for excellence /
centers of excellence / common offer between several
institutions / common infrastructure
 Doctoral training, programmes or schools, with coherent quality
control, selection and supervision procedures supported by
committees
 Designing doctoral training modules (subject-specific and
transferable) for all doctoral provision? Which ones should be
offered centrally, when is a subject perspective needed?
 Institutional merit-based grants, supporting excellent graduate
programmes: decisions by whom, research commission?
 How to encourage areas with development potential which are
not yet internationally competitive?
Mentality Change: Career Development
and Skills Training for PhD Candidates
 „New instruments for the career development
of researchers and improved recruitment
methods and career evaluation/appraisal
systems as a prerequisite for a genuine
European labour market for researchers.“
(Com Recommendation 2005)
 Skills training pushed strongly in the UK and
Nordic Countries (Sweden)
Joint Skills Statement of Research Councils in 2000
UK government -review by Sir Gareth Roberts 2003: „….PhD
students’ training should include at least 2 weeks’ dedicated
training a year, principally in transferable skills….“
Good Practice Example: Skills training at Imperial
College London
 Research skills and
techniques
 Research environment
– Ethical issues, concerning peer review,
pressure for results, conflicts of interest,
secrecy, obligation to the public
– Commercialisation
 Research management
– Time management, prioritisation, realism
– Project management, milestones etc
– Data management, IT skills
 Personal effectiveness
– Self-discipline, motivation, initiative
– Awareness of self limitations, training
needs
 Communication skills
– Writing
– Oral presentations: brief, long
– Professional audiences, public
understanding
– Teaching, media
 Networking and
teamworking
– Within research group, institution,
wider research community
– Understand behaviour, impact on
others
 Career management:
– Ownership, realistic goals, identify
development needs
– Insight into transferable nature of
research skills, range of career
opportunities within/outside
academia
– Effective presentation -CVs,
applications, interviews
Strategy Development: The Process
Strategy Development: The Process
 Space for individuals‘ ideas and innovation valued highly:
instruments and process reflect this attention (competitive
internal research funds for emerging areas, reserach council
to review ideas)
 „Strategic management“ rather than „strategic planning“
 Process is different according to the types of strat. aims:
– For scientific areas elaborate process up and down the
institutional levels
– For other overarching aims (innovation targets, research
service and conditions, graduate training guidelines/
framework, resource allocation models) more top-down
Strategic Process depends upon weights
associated with three kinds of basic
assumptions
 The individualistic motor of scientific innovation. The most
innovative ideas are always born in the mind of individuals who have
always been and will always be the most important motors of
innovation. Thus university leaders should never presume that they
are able to prescribe which areas lend themselves to institutional
prioritisation.
 The increasing group factor of scientific innovation. An
increasing number of scientific questions can only be tackled by
research groups, often interdisciplinary.
 The balance between long term perspectives and relevance for
society. Universities derive their institutional uniqueness from the
dominance of a long term perspective on all contents which they
explore. At the same time universities should produce research
results and perspectives which help society tackle its most pressing
problems.
Institutional Choices:
Balancing between fostering individual initiative
and more targeted institutional steering
Individual Space vs. Institutional Steering
5.0
B
4.5
L
D
Steering
4.0
E
I
3.5
3.0
G
F
C
2.5
H
2.0
A
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Attention to Individual Space
4.0
4.5
5.0
Indiv.
Idea

Filter on the basis of quality (peer review), priorities







The impact of university
steering

Outputs:
Graduates
 Individual •with
research
and
incentives
a
lot
weaker
Research
University is
 and Group experience
• Research
Seed
money
for
Projects
than
the impactof funding outputs
agency
nascent projects and
• Innovation

emerging areas
outputs
priorities!
Support consortia/
• visible

cluster formation,
research
strengths

centers of excellence
• partnerships
Support projects in

with external
prioritised areas of
knowledge

institutional strengths
actors &
or particular sociostakeholders

econ. relevance
Support for
individual projects
Support consortia/
cluster formation,
centers of excellence,
interdisciplinary groups
Support projects in
prioritised areas of
national strengths or
particular socio-econ.
relevance
Institutional or Indivudal Visibility & Compet. Advant.
Nation. / Reg. Context
Key findings concerning research strategy
development at European Universities
 Universities with Research Strategies conduct Strategic
Management rather than Strategic Planning: not the plan but
the implemented strategic actions count. Academic leadership
(incl. strong communicative talents) central sucess factor.
 At the institutions visited, national and regional contexts
promote strategy building at universities.
 In house resistance to strategy development declines with
advancement (unless to many strategies have to be
developed).
 The individual continues to be at the heart of university
attention.
 Major trend of consortialisation, strategies try to reinforce
formation of major groups, critical mass, centers of
excellence.
 Some regions play a crucial supportive role. Potential of
regions not to be underestimated.