Growing Research in New
Universities
Dr Ellen Hazelkorn
IMHE/OECD, Paris and DIT, Dublin
‘Managing the University Community -– Building a
Research Strategy and Funding It’
EUA conference, Barcelona, June 2004
Themes of Presentation

Context

Institutional Research Strategy

‘Best Practice’

Policy Implications for Government and Higher
Education
1. Context
For the first time, a really international world of learning,
highly competitive, is emerging. If you want to get into that
orbit, you have to do so on merit. You cannot rely on politics
or anything else. . .
Research is a core element of the mission of higher
education. The extent to which higher education institutions
are engaged in research and development activities has a
key role in determining the status and the quality of these
institutions and the contribution, which they make to
economic and social development.
HE Research as Economic Driver

Global knowledge-economy → Strategic importance of
national research strategy

National and regional development → production of new
knowledge, knowledge transfer and economic
performance

Role and mission of HE → task of growing research
capability and capacity no longer optional

Innovation, application and knowledge specialization 
competitive advantage and performance
Institutional Context

National and regional economy

Institutional history and development

Research experience, capability and capacity

HE system and role of individual HEIs
Challenges of Growing Research

Poor institutional infrastructure

Limited scale and critical mass

Academic staff often without necessary prerequisites

Not traditionally resourced for research

Academic workload tensions

New disciplines without research tradition
2. Institutional Research Strategy
Why do Research?

‘Sustain academic and professional reputation in
knowledge-based economy’

‘Align academic activities with economic development
of region’

‘Retain and improve position’

‘Attract and retain high quality faculty and students’

‘Maintain cutting-edge curriculum’ and ‘create
stimulating learning environment’
Identifying Institutional Goals

Research informed

Research based

Research active

Research led

Research intensive
Strategic Planning and Prioritysetting

Shape what should do, not simply what can or are
best equipped to do

Optimal use of scarce resources (financial, human and
physical)

Align institutional competencies with external
environment and national aspirations

Balance existing capability with potential and
opportunities
Priority-setting Process

Centralised or top-down: priorities and funding are
determined by Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research

De-centralised or bottom-up: priorities set by individual
researchers or departments

Combination: priorities set via involvement of different
vertical levels of university personnel, boards and
groups
Identifying Objectives

To grow research capability and capacity

To ensure strong research-teaching nexus

To link research to wider societal responsibilities

To increase and allocate resources to facilitate
productivity and reward excellence

To establish research clusters/centres of excellence

To enhance institutional status and mission
Identifying Priorities

Applied research

Industry-related

Basic research

Institutional significance

Collaboration

Interdisciplinary

Regional or local significance

New or emerging domain

Creative practice
Defining Research

‘Our main focus is applied research…with outcomes in
consulting and experimental production.’

‘We normally use the term research and other scholarly
activities…’

‘For government, we distinguish between basic and
applied research and development. However, our
activities are so diversified …’

‘Our research strategy is built around making a difference
to all R&D partners – be they enterprises, industry
sectors, government or communities. . .’
Widening the Definition of Research

Basic vs applied

Disciplinary vs interdisciplinary (Mode 1 vs Mode 2)

Professional and creative practice

Knowledge and technology transfer

Research vs Scholarship – Research and
Scholarship?
Organizing Research (1)
T = R  Inclusive departments
T & R  Departments + units/centres
T  R  Departments + autonomous centres
T  R  University + autonomous institutes
Organising Research (2)

Determining the teaching and research nexus

Distinguishing between ‘discipline oriented’ and
‘problem solving’ research

Linking research/commercialisation to society via
boundary-crossing units

Building collaborative research teams with other
universities, research labs, industry, organisations, etc.
Building Competence

Recruit

Re-invigorate

Train

Re-orient

Enable
Incentives and Rewards

Greater research time

Targeted grants

Promotional opportunities

Enhanced facilities

Internships with industry or other partners

Salary increases

Sabbatical leave
Research Office

Professional One-stop Shop

Financial and budget advice

Identify funding opportunities

Project preparation

Project management

Research training and mentoring

Ph.D. programmes

Intellectual property and commercialisation advice
Financing Research

Government funding is declining

Rise in competitive external funding

Diversify funding base

Income generation via consultancy, services,
commercialisation, IP

Investment strategies
Resource Allocation Model

Criteria influenced by national/international benchmarks

Institute or faculty assessment panels

Peer-review publications, research income, citations,
PhDs

Role of professional or creative practice? consultancy?

Formulaic funding to match institutional/national
objectives and priorities
Difficulties Encountered

Institutional ethos

Rigidity or lack of flexibility

Faculty response

Funding

Numbers of researchers

Speed by which decisions implemented

Evaluation process
3. ‘Best Practice’
What Works

Director/Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research

Research office

Research strategy and management plan

Priority-setting and evaluation process

Research units/centres with special resources
Indicative Research Structure
V-P Research
Research Active Faculty
Graduate Students
Research Strategy
Committee
Research Centres
and Units
Research Office
Technology Transfer
Office
Science Parks
and Incubator Centres
Targeted Approach

Invest

Aggressive use of performance indicators

Limited number of research priorities

Research teams/centres

‘Graduate School’

Strategic alliances and collaboration

Align funding, recruitment, etc. to priorities
Building a ‘Culture of Scholarship’

Not everyone needs to be involved in research

Policies should enhance nexus between research and
teaching

Range of services, awards and rewards to encourage
and facilitate research should be introduced

Wider definition of scholarship, rather than a traditional
dichotomous view of basic and applied, would provide
more encouraging environment
Strategic Choices

Recruit or grow?

T+R vs T/R?

Research culture vs culture of scholarship?

Individual researchers vs research teams?

Targeted/niche vs seed-corn/universal funding?

Institutional funding vs competitive funding?

Decentralised vs centralised management structure?
Process of Growing Research
Context
Global
knowledge
economy
National &
regional
economy
HE system &
investment
HEI history &
experience
Evaluation &
benchmarking
Strategy
Strategic plan &
priority setting
Match
competences
with niche
Investment
strategy
Align funding,
recruitment to
priorities
Organisation
V-P Research
Research &
KT/TT Office
Research teams
& centres
‘Science parks’
Graduate
School
RAM
Alliances &
collaboration
HR policies
Infrastructure
Government vs HEI Mission? Teaching vs Research vs Scholarship? World-class vs National vs Region; S&T vs SS&H
4. Policy Implications for
Government and Higher Education
Two Scenarios

Few research universities concentrate all world class
research across all disciplines; rest concentrate on
undergraduate or professional teaching with limited
locally relevant applied research.

Spread of teaching and research excellence with
universities as ‘main proximity knowledge providers’
driven to specialise because of relevance and
competences.
Late-developers and Newcomers

Barriers or restricted barriers to entry

Disadvantages of starting late from poor base

Market forces  devastating impact on late developer or
newcomer

Close relationship between policymakers and dominant
groups

Criteria and rules for research funding are antipathetic to
new HEIs
Policy Initiatives (1)

Underpin and build on diverse university missions in
research and innovation

Enhance regional/spatial strategy: innovation networks,
learning regions, community engagement

Widen funding metrics to support research (basic and
applied), creative/professional practice, knowledge and
technology transfer

Investment strategy to grow research capability and
capacity
Policy Initiatives (2)

‘Head-start’ grants to overcome late development

Target staff development, mobility and HR strategies

Support research training and career development

Strengthen institutional/research management and
leadership
Principal Conclusions

Important challenges impeding late-developers and
newcomers

Market conditions not sufficient to meet/overcome
challenges

New knowledge production requires new structures &
frameworks

Role of government and policy instruments is critical

Barriers to entry rising

Gap widening between ‘research rich’ and ‘research poor’
ellen.hazelkorn@dit.ie
www.oecd.org/edu/higher