Creation of critical masses in R&D at the smaller HEIs is frequently obtained through institutional specialisation within specific areas in R&D and research training; this specialisation also has consequences for the undergraduate programmes offered. Specialisation may be achieved, for example, by emphasising certain aspects of health in the medical schools and specific industrial activities in engineering at a given university or polytechnic. This way smaller institutions are still able to compete for research funds, for example from TEKES.
One consequence of the otherwise constructive specialisation of small universities and polytechnics is that the overall international institutional ranking may be relatively low, despite the fact that many would receive
48 – 5. RESEARCH
OECD REVIEWS OF TERTIARY EDUCATION – FINLAND – ISBN 978-92-64-04904-8 – © OECD 2009
good rankings in specialist fields. The small size of units also limit the possibilities of staff mobility, because of critical mass considerations, and also limit the support services which can be provided for research students.
Finland has been very conscious of the differentiation between Modes 1 and 2 Knowledge Production (Mode 1 is generally defined as academic research undertaken within the academic community according to academic norms and very often single discipline in character. Mode 2 is generally defined as multi-disciplinary research of a problem solving nature, normally commissioned by external agencies and with a strong user orientation). Finland has enthusiastically adopted a strong commitment to a user-based problem solving perspective where real life applications of research tend to take place in the space between traditional fields. One example is biotechnological applications which by their nature are interdisciplinary. However, the traditional (departmental and faculty) structures at HEIs are often poorly suited to accommodate interdisciplinary research and the establishment of centres may thus be useful in this context. In recent years major investments have been made in biotechnological fields, with large bio-centres on campuses in Helsinki, Turku and Oulu, but the commercial outcomes are not yet significant, although the hope of a new “Nokia” in the field of biotechnology still remains. In a recent study by the Academy of Finland both the structural obstacles to interdisciplinary research as well as cultural differences between different fields are discussed. The study attempts to identify ways of promoting important interdisciplinary research and points out, among other, that there are considerable difficulties connected with the evaluation of interdisciplinary research.
All the above point to the challenges of creating critical mass, which is internationally acknowledge to be a prime consideration in achieving genuine international level research, especially in Science and Technology. Various possibilities exist for this:
− Some universities have created Centres of Excellence to fulfil this purpose, under the general competitive approval and oversight of the Academy of Finland, and the general rubric of funding for up to 2 periods of 6 years. They are primarily research organisations dedicated to generating and conducting external contract research; commercialise intellectual property (patents); Ph.D. clustering and support.
While, on the whole very successful, the Centres are vulnerable to a loss of sustainability with resulting dislocation of activities, given the short-term contract funding, the treadmill of continuous grant applications and the possibility of de-designation. This is paralleled by experiences internationally: a normal consequence of a dynamic
5. RESEARCH – 49 competitive research system where successful centre management is of the essence.
− The Academy of Finland has sponsored an impressive Graduate School programme, through a complex approved and support process, which seems to be, nonetheless welcomed by Universities. The activities are primarily inter-institutional across the Finnish HEI sector, and have provided both structure and higher efficiency to the Ph.D. training and support in Finland. They have, for example, lowered the study time and the average age of the graduating Ph.D.s. There are presently 124 graduate schools with almost 1500 salaried positions for Ph.D. students. The largest student numbers are in information technology and biotechnology, with more than 20% of the total in each field. Also students without a position in a graduate school are allowed to take advantage of the graduate school activities, but must find funding, e.g. for living costs, elsewhere. In such cases support is often provided by the student’s employer. The graduate schools have also helped attract a larger number than before of foreign graduate students (see also Chapter 7 on Internationalisation). The major common activities of graduate schools are to provide common training courses and joint supervision for the disciplines or interdisciplines in question; help young researchers prepare for entry into the academic profession; sustain a high level of quality assurance; and ensure a gradual elevation of quality across the board by systematic benchmarking.
− There are, of course, looser forms of critical mass, achieved through cooperation in terms of staff exchanges, joint supervisions etc., often including research institutes. This is a valuable source of research renewal, especially since the research institutes thereby will be able to increase their present limited involvement in research training and other educational activities. Such involvement has been demonstrated to be useful for the research productivity. Also staff exchanges with research intensive industries may be valuable for both sides. It will often be necessary to facilitate staff exchanges through a system of proper incentives, such as support for travel, relocation, etc.
− Mergers of institutions constitute a more radical critical mass, and we turn to this in Chapter 9.
In the light of the above, the following recommendations/reflections are offered:
50 – 5. RESEARCH
OECD REVIEWS OF TERTIARY EDUCATION – FINLAND – ISBN 978-92-64-04904-8 – © OECD 2009
mechanisms for bridging funding for post docs work should be examined to avoid dislocation when grants come to an end; means of articulating Finnish graduate schools with those of
other European countries should be pursued, especially through the Euro-Doc initiative;
means of using the graduate schools to help develop the research capacity of polytechnics should be examined.
− The centres of excellence could well explore their relationships with the TEKES Centres of Expertise (of which there are 22) a parallel innovation system.
− Given the obvious advantages of cooperative approaches, the Academy and TEKES might assess whether their grant/award mechanisms contain explicit incentives and rewards for inter- institutional bids. This is done in the Irish Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) about to enter its fourth cycle, and has been very successful in this regard.