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

degreesDoctoral S&E Degrees by World Region

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

S &

E P

h.D

. Deg

rees

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

U.S

. Cit

izen

s an

d P

erm

Res

USA Europe Asia % US Citizens

All U.S

Europe

Asia

U.S. Citizen

… 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

Source: European Innovation Scoreboard 2006

Increasing Need for International Skills for Researchers inside and outside of Academia

How do European Research-intensive 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 Condition 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

main national funding authority has research priorities

x x x x x x

national or regional level priorities exert strong influence on research activities at institution

x x x x x x

main national funding authority asks for strategic priorities from institution

x x x x x x

regional and other external public and private funding agencies want to see strategies

x x x x x x x

other important funding authority (innovation oriented) has research priorities

x x x x x x x x x

new activities are mostly funded through extra external funding

x x x x x x x x x x

majority of research funding comes through external grants ("third party" or "second source") rather than through the institutional grant

x x x x x x x x x

region plays a significant or strong role in supporting new initiatives, marked "(x)" or "x" respectively

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

Intensified partnerships with regional authorities and businesses, extension of innovation activities of univ.

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 subject-specific 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 Enhancing international attractiveness of research

environment Establishing doctoral or graduate programmes and

schools to support all of the above aims

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 SchoolsType of Graduate School Primary aims Frequent in:

Thematically

focused Graduate

School/

Graduiertenkolleg/

Research School

Promotes subject-specific often interdisciplinary excahnge,

Promotes excellent research environments in key areas of

institutional strengths,

Increases international visibility and attraktivität/

Rekrutierung im Ausland

D, NL

Faculty-based or

interfaculty

Graduate School

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)

GB, US,

D

Institutional

Graduate School

Administrative and social roof for research training, incl.

support Services, coordinated offer in „transferable skills“

Lobbying and respresentation of research training issues at

institutional and national level

GB, US

Inter-institutional

Graduate School/

Doctoral School/

Research School

Creates critical mass in a given area, enhances subject-

based exchange, increases international visibility, enhances

national coordination and complementarity of the offer in the

field

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 steeringIndividual Space vs. Institutional Steering

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Attention to Individual Space

Ste

erin

g

A

C

D

E

H

I

L

B

G

F

Research University

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

Nation. / Reg. Context

Fil

ter

on

th

e b

asis

of

qu

alit

y (p

eer

revi

ew),

pri

ori

ties

Individual and Group Projects Seed money for

nascent projects and emerging areas

Support consortia/ cluster formation, centers of excellence

Support projects in prioritised areas of institutional strengths or particular socio-econ. relevance

Outputs: • Graduates with research experience• Research outputs• Innovation outputs• visible research strengths• partnerships with external knowledge actors & stakeholders

Inst

itu

tio

na

l or

Ind

ivu

dal

Vis

ibili

ty &

Co

mp

et. A

dv

ant.

Indiv. Idea Incentives

The impact of university steering and incentives is a lot weaker than the impact of funding agency priorities!

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.