Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Persistent factors facilitating excellence in research environments

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study presented here identifies robust and time-invariant features that characterise dynamic and innovative research environments. It takes as its point of departure the results of an empirical study conducted in 2002 which identified the common characteristics of 15 dynamic and innovative public research environments, and focusses on their development by revisiting the environments after more than a decade, hence mapping them in the current research landscape. Using a model for studies of research environments that was constructed and used in the Nordic countries, the study maps both internal elements and those in the framework of the environments that influence research performance and identifies persistent factors in dynamic and innovative research environments. The findings add to our understanding of how to improve the overall ecology of knowledge production and create optimal conditions that support research environments in pursuing and ensuring excellence. Implications for further research and policy are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Danish Research Council (recently renamed the Danish Council for Independent Research) is an independent body that funds specific research activities based on researchers’ own initiatives. The council aims at supporting curiosity-driven research and promoting the most original ideas and initiatives within Danish research.

  2. For a more detailed description of the model, the theoretical approach behind the model and how it was developed and tested in Nordic research environments, the reader is referred to Kalpazidou Schmidt 1996 and Kalpazidou Schmidt et al. 2003.

  3. A short overview on the development and status of the 15 research environments in 2015 is offered as Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM).

  4. The division between research leadership and management is a general trend in Denmark today and a consequence of governance reforms and large mergers between universities, departments and research environments, all influenced by persistent implementation of NPM.

References

  • Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and Bibliometrics rankings. Scientometrics, 89, 929–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aksnes, D. W., & Taxt, R. E. (2004). Peer reviews and bbliometric indicators: a comparative study at a Norwegian university. Research Evaluation, 13, 33–41.

  • Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F.M. (Ed.) (1979). Scientific productivity. The effectiveness of research groups in six countries. Paris: Cambridge University Press, Paris.

  • Auranen, O. (2014). University research performance. Influence of funding competition, policy steering and micro-level factors. Tampere, Finland: Tampere University Press.

  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance. An international comparison. Research Policy, 39(6), 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. (1952). Science and the social order. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B., & Edge, D. (Eds.). (1982). Science in context. Readings in the sociology of science. Stony Stratford: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of the disciplines (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., & Kogan, M. (2007). Organization and governance of universities. Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, C.W.; Schneider, J.W.; Sinkjær, T. (2016). Size, accumulation and performance for research grants: examining the role of size for centres of excellence. PLoS One, 2016, s.1–17.

  • Borlaug, S. B. (2015). Innovation and excellence in research policy – external steering, internal responses. PhD thesis. Oslo: University of Oslo.

  • Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008) “What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior”, Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80.

  • Bornmann, L., de Moya-Anegon, F., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Do scientific advancements lean on the shoulders of giants? A bibliometric investigation of the Ortega hypothesis. PloS One, 5(10), e11344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2003). Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research center: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government. Accessed 1 Sep 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35, 975–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlløf, U. (1982). Faculty profiles in a long-term and comparative perspective. In Bélanger, C.E. (ed). The universities in a changing world. Adaptation or guidance. Proceedings Fourth European AIR Forum, Uppsala University 25–27 August, 1982.

  • Danish Government (2006). Globalization strategy. Progress, innovation and cohesion. Copenhagen: Strategy for Denmark in the Global Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, T. C. E., Goos, P., Dexters, N., & Spruyt, E. H. J. (2013). Group size, h-index, and efficiency in publishing in top journals explain expert panel assessments of research group quality and productivity. Research Evaluation, 22, 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Kemelgor, C. (1998). The role of research centres in the collectivisation of academic science. Minerva, 36, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2009). Mutual learning on approaches to improve the excellence of research in universities. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union/ CREST Fourth OMC Working Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2009). The governance of higher education systems: a public management perspective. In Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., and Ferlie, E. (Eds), University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives (pp. 1–20). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2011). The first Italian research assessment exercise: A bibliometric perspective. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 275–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frølich, N., Huisman, J., Slipersæter, S., Stensaker, B., & Pimentel Botas, P. C. (2013). A reinterpretation of institutional transformations in European higher education: Strategising pluralistic organisations in multiplex environments. Higher Education, 65, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galtung, J. (1977). Methodology and ideology, vol. 1. Copenhagen: Ejlers Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotony, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gläser, J., Lange, S., Laudel, G., & Schimank, U. (2010). Informed authority? The limited use of research evaluation systems for managerial control in universities. In R. Whitley, J. Gläser, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation (pp. 149–183). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Graversen, E. K., Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. & Langberg, K. (2005). Dynamic Research Environments – A Development Model. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16(8), 1498–1511.

  • Groot, T., & Garcia-Valderrama, T. (2006). Research quality and efficiency—an analysis of assessments and management issues in Dutch economics and Business research programs. Research Policy, 35(9), 1362–1376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulbrandsen, & Smeby, J. C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarfelt, B., Nelhans, G., Eklund, P., & Åström, F. (2016). The heterogeneous landscape of bibliometric indicators: Evaluating models for allocating resources at Swedish universities. Research Evaluation, 2016, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H. F. (2012). Fusionsprocesserne: Frivillighed under tvang. In K. Aagaard & N. Mejlgaard (Eds.), Dansk Forskningspolitik efter Årtusindskiftet (pp. 195–228). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D., & Senker, J. M. (2009). Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research. Research Policy, 38, 610–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., & Martin, B. R. (2008). Creative knowledge environments. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 196–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M., Martin, B. R., & Mumford, M. D. (2014). Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation. Routledge studies in innovation, organization and technology. New York and London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, M. J., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21(3), 399–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalpazidou, Schmidt E. (2009). Nordic higher education systems in the European higher education area and the European research area. Education et Societès, 24, 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalpazidou, Schmidt E. (2012). University funding reforms in the Nordic countries. In F. Maruyama & I. Dobson (Eds.), Cycles of university reforms: Japan and Finland compared (pp. 31–56). Tokyo: Centre for National University Finance and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalpazidou Schmidt, E. (1996). Research environments in a Nordic perspective. A comparative study in ecology and scientific productivity. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis. Uppsala studies in education 67. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Graversen E. K., & Langberg K. (2003). Innovation and Dynamics in Public Research Environments in Denmark: A Research Policy Perspective, Science and Public Policy, vol. 30(2), 107–116.

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, B., & Babchuk, N. (1998). The quest for institutional recognition: A longitudinal analysis of scholarly productivity and academic prestige among sociology departments. Social Forces, 76(4), 1495–1533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. D. (1981). The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr Cetina, K. D. (1982). Scientific communities or Transepistemic arenas of research. Social Studies of Science, 12, 101–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: a cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 379–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G., Kristiansen, E. H., Aksnes, D. W., Brorstad Borlaug, S., Hansen, H. F., Kallerud, E., & Pelkonen, A. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy, 42, 661–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudel, G. (2006). The art of getting funded: how scientists adapt to their funding conditions. Science and Public Policy, 33(7), 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1973). The development of specialities in science: the case of X-ray protein crystallography. Sciences Studies, 3, 275–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz, F., Thao, M., & Johnson, K. (2012). Expert panel reviews of research centers: The site visit process. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 390–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L., & Dee, J. (2012). Understanding academic work in changing institutional environment. In Smart, J.C., & Paulsen, M.B. (Eds), Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol 27 (pp. 123–206). Dordrecht: Springer

  • Leisyte, L., & Enders, J. (2011). The strategic responses of English and Dutch university life scientists to the changes in their institutional environments. In J. Enders, H. de Boer, & D. Westerheijden (Eds.), Higher education reform in Europe (pp. 143–157). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Lepori, B., Van den Besselaar, P., Dinges, M., Poti, B., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., et al. (2007). Indicators for comparative analysis of public project funding: Concepts, implementation and evaluation. Research Evaluation, 16(4), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., & Agha, L. (2015). Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science, 348(6233), 434–438. doi:10.1126/science.aaa0185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2003). The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In A. Geuna, A. J. Salter, & W. E. Steinmueller (Eds.), Science and innovation. Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance (pp. 7–29). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münch, R. (2014). Academic capitalism. Universities in the global struggle for excellence. Routledge advances in sociology 121. New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, L., Hemlin, S., & Pousette, A. (2012). A multi-level analysis of leader-member exchange and creative performance in research groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 604–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Öquist, G., & Benner, M. (2012). Fostering breakthrough research: A comparative study. Stockholm: Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014). Promoting research excellence: new approaches to funding. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, D., Jaeger, M., & Wespel, J. (2011). New forms of incentive funding for public research: A concept paper on research excellence initiatives. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelz, D. C., & Andrews, F. M. (1966). Scientists in organizations: productive climates for research and development. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietilä, M. (2014). The many faces of research profiling: Academic leaders’ conceptions of research steering. Higher Education, 67(3), 303–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruvot, E. B., & Estermann, T. (2015). Funding for excellence: Define thematic report. Brussels: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P. (1994). Describing and explaining research productivity. Higher Education, 28(2), 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinia, E. J., van Leeuwen, T., van Vuren, H. G., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1998). Comparative analysis of a set of Bibliometric indicators and central peer review criteria: Evaluation of condensed matter physics in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 27, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinne, R., & Koivula, J. (2005). The changing place of the university and a clash of values. The entrepreneurial university in the European knowledge society. Higher Education Management & Policy, 17(3), 91–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2011). The future of research universities. Prometheus, 29, 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rons, N., De Bruyn, A., & Cornelis, J. (2008). Research evaluation per discipline: a peer-review method and its outcomes. Research Evaluation, 17, 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, F. (2009). Universities’ access to research funds: Do institutional features and strategies matter? Tertiary Education and Management, 15(2), 113–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostan, M., & Vaira, M. (Eds.) (2011). Questioning excellence in higher education: policies, experiences and challenges in national and comparative perspective (pp. 57–74). Dordrecth: Sense Publishers.

  • Saarinen, T., & Välimaa, J. (2012). Change as an intellectual device and as an object of research. In B. Stensaker, J. Välimaa, & C. S. Sarrico (Eds.), Managing reform in universities: the dynamics of culture, identity and organizational change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, A., Glänzel, W., & Braun, T. (1988). Against absolute methods: relative scientometric indicators and relational charts as evaluation tools. In A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 137–175). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeby, J., & Try, S. (2005). Departmental contexts and faculty research activity in Norway. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 593–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science—overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, M. P., Bloch, C., & Young, M. (2016). Excellence in the knowledge-based economy: From scientific to research excellence. European Journal of Higher Education, 6(3). doi:10.1080/21568235.2015.1015106.

  • Strehl, F., Reisinger, S., & Kalatschan, M. (Eds.). (2007). Funding systems and their effects on higher education systems: OECD education working papers, no. 6. Paris: OECD. doi:10.1787/220244801417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tammi, T. (2009). The competitive funding of university research: The case of Finnish science universities. Higher Education, 57, 657–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thune, T., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Institutionalization of university–industry interaction: a empirical study of the impact of formal structures on collaboration patterns. Science and Public Policy, 38, 99–107.

  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2003). Scoreboards of research excellence. Research Evaluation, 12(2), 91–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Besselaar, P., & Leydesdorf, L. (2009). Past performance, peer review and project selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4), 272–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbee, M., Horlings, E., Groenewegen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2015). Organisational factors influencing scholarly performance: A multivariate study of biomedical research groups. Scientometrics, 102, 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbree, M., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2014a). Generation and life-cycle effects on academic leadership. In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, B. R. Martin, & M. D. Mumford (Eds.), Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation. Routledge studies in innovation, organization and technology (pp. 113–148). New York and London: Routledge.

  • Verbree, M., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2014b). Academic leadership of high-performing research groups. In S. Hemlin, C. M. Allwood, B. R. Martin, & M. D. Mumford (Eds.), Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation. Routledge studies in innovation, organization and technology (pp. 149–183). New York and London: Routledge.

  • Weinberg, A. (1963). Criteria for scientific choice. Minerva, 1(2), 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organisation of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders. Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Aarhus University’s Senior Management Strategic Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt & Ebbe Krogh Graversen

Authors
  1. Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ebbe Krogh Graversen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 20 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., Graversen, E.K. Persistent factors facilitating excellence in research environments. High Educ 75, 341–363 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0142-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0142-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation