J O E N S U U S E MI N A R 1 0 DE C E M B E R 2 01 4
J A C K S P A A P E N
FLEXIBILITY AND BALANCE
The Future of Higher Education,
Research and Innovation [HERI]
in the Netherlands and Finland
Topics
The context of Higher Education, Research & Innovation HERI
Grand HERI challenges
A short history of shifts in Dutch science policy
Comparison of the two countries, socio-economic and higher
education characteristics
System issues and challenges
Current Dutch solution
Future options
Grand movements in the context of HERI
3
Shift from academic research to applied research / research in the
context of application
(Gibbons, Nowotny a.o.)
Shift from national funding to EU funding, block grant – external f.
Shift from disciplinary research to MIT research
Open access / open science /open innovation (publishers, IPR)
Shift from pencil, books and classrooms to keyboards, and distant
(online) reading and learning
Shift from higher education / research policy to industry policy
Grand HERI Challenges
4
Growing tension between basic and applied research, and between block grant and competitive financing strategic space changes
Growing tension between specialization and generalization (in research and in education), a.o. broad bachelors, loss of knowledge / expertise? Growing tension between research and education (affecting the structure
and function of the university) – separation?
ICT – big data, MOOCs, etc., distributed knowledge aquisition
Productive interactions between universities and environment: society, industry, UAS
Ongoing struggle between ministries of education and science and economic affairs (top sectors, EZ ultimate power)
Growing need for international collaboration (GSC, also disasters [nuclear, climate, water] )
Traditional institutional structures give way to networks with society, industry, EU, global
HERI characteristics change
Education: different skills (21
stcentury skills), different
attitude : open, oriented towards other disciplines, society
Research: broader orientation, collaboration with other fields,
other expertise, controversies, post normal science
Innovation: focus not (only) on technological innovation but
on social innovation
NL : Gradual shift in policy
goals
1980s – first major government attempt to reorganise the system, take away
some autonomy of the universities
TVC (task distribution and concentration) and CF (reallocation based on quality judgment)
1990s – first attempt to organise research on a national level, attention for
societal demand
(national) research schools, PPPs (Wageningen food valley)
2000s – policy of focus and mass
key sectors (KIA), standard evaluation protocol (SEP I)
2010 – Veerman
Sharper profile for universities, differentiation and selection
2012 - Top Sectors
1980s : TVC and conditional financing
TVC start of a national university policy, introducing 4 money flows and priority areas, disciplinary plans: raising efficiency and
effectiveness, transparency, but also budget cuts (2500-3000 fte) CF meant to reallocate nationally, on the basis of quality judgments,
stimulating societal orientation, start national quality evaluation of research, no major reallocation happened
Result: budget cuts yes, but not so much on the basis of quality
judgments, political ‘card game’, winners chemistry, physics, astronomy losers H, SS, biology, earth sc.;
1990s : Research schools and PPPs
Research schools aim at national coordination of the best researchers and PhD students
First Public Private Partnerships in Wageningen Agricultural University, merger with DLO (applied) institutes – food valley
Concentration of research and training, market orientation slowly
growing
2000s : SEP, Focus and mass, key areas
SEP = standard evaluation protocol: 4 criteria for research
evaluation, quality, productivity, societal relevance, vitality of
management
Focus and mass, stimulation of specific areas (genomics, nano,
ict, some societal areas like urban development), FES, TTIs and
MTIs
Broad coalition for knowledge, Key innovation areas:
Chemistry, Flowers & Food, High Tech Systems & Materials, Water, Creative industry, Pensions / social security
Major science policy goals 2007:
academic values still prevail
Ambitious climate for excellent research and breakthroughs Self governance of disciplines, main focus on basic, unbound
research
Room for young talent, go where the best research is done
Priorities of those research areas that connect best to agenda’s of government, industry and society
Strengthening of demand orientation in professional schools and TNO and GTIs
2010s : Veerman and topsectors
Veerman: major restructuring of higher education system:
universities and professional schools are to choose a clearer
profile in research and education (differentiation and
selection) –
University of the Netherlands ?
Topsectors: 10 Sectors where Netherlands is economically
strong become leading in research policy :
Agro food, Flowers, High Tech, Energy, Logistics, Creative Industry, Life sciences,Chemistry, Water, and Head Offices
Focus shifting to research and education serving Industry /
Society
economic affairs taking over
Major science policy goals 2010:
economic values prevail
Preparing the Netherlands for growing global competition
Connection to the labor market weak in many areas / knowledge paradox
The need for more output of people with higher education diplomas [50% in 2020]
Higher education system needs more differentiation and flexibility, focus on talent and broad programs (generalization vs specialisation)
Most recent step: Governmental Vision 2014
Dutch science of world wide significance
Science with maximum impact
Dutch science as a breeding ground for talent
Summary
1980s university policy focusing on raising quality of
universities, and task distribution
1990s science policy focusing on PhDs and on national
coordination of research
2000s science and economics, key areas
2010s horizontal and vertical profiling, universities, sector
plans, top sectors
The countries
15
Finland : small, 5,5 million people, but a big land
NL : not so small, 17 million people, but a small land
Finland : GDP $257 (2013), $47.218 per cap. [Worldbank]
NL : GDP $800 (2013), $47.617 per cap. [Worldbank]
Economy Finland : service economy (2/3), manufacturing/refining (1/3)
electronics, machinery, forest industry, ICT
Economy NL : service economy (55%, logistics, banking); chemistry,
agriculture and food, high tech, creative industry
Geography /history Finland : Nordic country, Scandinavia, Baltics, Russia
,….Europe, Asia, rest of the world
Geography / history NL : centre between large economies, UK, GER, FR, big
harbours, transit country
Politics / society Finland : democratic, human values, international / EU
orientation – languages Fin, Swe, Rus, Eng, right wing party
Politics / society NL : democratic, human values, international / EU orientation,
languages NL, Fr, Ger, Eng, right wing party
Main ambitions Finland : international orientation, quality
What did the Netherlands export in 2012?
Harvard Atlas Economic complexity
What did Finland export in 2012?
Harvard Atlas Economic complexity
How we are called in Chinese
EU Innovation Union Scoreboard 2014
19
Note: Average performance is measured using a composite indicator building on data for 24 indicators going
FINLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS ARE DOING GREAT!
today
Current HERI systems
22
Finland : 14 Universities, 24 UAS, other institutions (academy,
TEKES)
NL : 13 (14, 15, 8) universities, 38 UAS, other institutes and
institutions
Interactions between different parts, and with the political system Ambitions: Excellent research and education, high societal impact,
connectivity, international orientation
Policy: efficiency, efficacy, accountability, control / autonomy, top
down or bottom up
What HERI?
What kind of universities (or UAS) do we want?
What kind of research do we need?
What kind of education do we want?
What kind of innovation do we need?
What do International Rankings tell us?
The global competitive index 2014-2015: both top 10 EU innovation scoreboard : both in top 10
Times Higher Education index : NL universities mostly in top 200, Finland all in top 400
Leiden ranking, Shanghai ranking, etc. What does it mean to be in the top?
Do we want to a Yale (1% admitted, 1.000 places, 60.000 $ per year)
THE world university ranking 2014
25
1. California Institute of Technology 2. Harvard University
3. University of Oxford 4. Stanford University
5. University of Cambridge
6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7. Princeton University
8. University of California, Berkeley =9. Imperial College London
Yale facts
26Undergraduate students* 5,379 Graduate and professional
students* 6,501 International students* 2,135 Faculty* 4,140 Staff* 9,323 International scholars* 2,327
Living alumni 168,987 (as of April 2012)
Library holdings 15 million volumes Varsity athletic teams* 35
Total number of buildings* 440
Endowment (market
value)* $19.3 billion
What are the challenges for a successful HERI policy
[in a small country]
27
Public finances / private investments
Relationship between education and research [publish/perish] Collaboration vs competititon, regional, national and international Excellence and relevance, or a smart combination
Triple helix, research themes, finances
RRI (gender eq., science ed., ethics, open access, public engagement, governance) Governance, top down vs bottom up
Evaluation, new demands, new forms (Science in transition)
the best way to grow sustainable is investing in human capital [economic literature]; resilience of people and institutes ever more important – learning economy [WRR – scientific advisory council]
What can governments do?
28
Decisions about allocation of national budget, Finland is investing more Decisions about quality control, accountability
Research: quality and relevance
Education: quality, student numbers, curricula, labor market, etc.
Third mission / valorisation / collaboration (Swe): connection to societal demand
Responsible research and innovation (gender equality, ethics, science education, open access, etc.
Decisions about role in innovation: better society, global competition
Helping industry, small and big
Helping societal partners, social innovation Participation in European GSC
Global cooperation (f.e. IPCC)
Indicators / indications for the knowledge economy / society Comprehensive evaluation
The wider context
29
Socio-economic development : what kind of country do you want to be? Service economy? Hight tech? manufacturing?
Connectivity within the country, (de)centralisation, distributed control
Local, regional, national
Global competition, collaboration
Relations with border countries
Relations with the EU, see think piece, EU The future of Europe is Science (science,
engineering and technology, SET) knowledge guided society
System issues
30
The transformation of (new) knowledge into new societal concepts, organisational ideas, products and services (applications)
Communication within the system and with government and society, common ‘agenda’, foresight activities, self reflection
Education, foreign students, mobility Bama, phd’s, labor market
Research : quality and relevance, blue sky research, applied research, collaboration between Natural and SSH
31
knowledge production:
improving connections
31 Question, issue, problem society research policy industry32
CHANGING POLICY CONTEXT
32
Netherlands universities:
sharper profiles, finances based on performance
Top Sector Policy:
Stimulating collaboration in the golden triangle between science, industry, policy/society: Energy, high tech, water, agriculture and food, creative industry,
EU: Grand Societal Challenges:
Health, demographic change and wellbeing; Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and maritime research, and the bio-economy; Secure, clean and efficient energy; Smart, green and integrated transport; Inclusive, innovative and secure societies; Climate action, resource efficiency and raw materials
EU: Joint Programming Initiatives:
Agriculture, food security and climate change; Cultural Heritage and global change; Healthy diet for a healthy life; Urban Europe, Future of cities and transport
ilippppp
33
new way of looking at knowledge production:
as a long term team effort
33 Question, issue, problem society research policy industry
The system produces socially robust knowledge : scientifically reliable, socially valuable
Golden triangle ?
National Research Agenda 2015
35
Open process, all major players included form science and
society
All major “ agenda’s” included, institutional profiling, top
sectors, learning economy, employers, academy research
agenda, etc.
Ready in fall 2015
KNAW / Academy established a national platform for the
research community
(1) Dutch science of worldwide significance
36
Free rein for creativity and innovative ideas
Towards a National Science Agenda, a unifying agenda for
research in The Netherlands
Working together in ground-breaking research Framework agreement with universities
A new role for NWO / research council
A more strategic approach to large-scale infrastructure A more responsive and dynamic system of institutes
(2) Science with maximum impact
37
Open Access as the catalyst of knowledge sharing, ‘learning economy’ The participative public: Open Dialogue
The societal partners: inspiration and responsibility
The private sector: working to address the societal challenges
Universities of applied sciences: an integral part of the knowledge system Students, pupils and teachers: Education based on the latest scientific
insights
(3) Dutch science as a breeding ground for talent
38
Opportunities for various forms of talent
Involvement in research, education and valorisation
The Netherlands as the ‘preferred location’ for scientific
talent
A good inflow, throughflow and outflow on the labour market
More opportunities for women in science
The researcher at the centre of policy: less pressure to
publish and acquire funding
Conclusions (for small countries)
39
Pull resources and strengths together, national and local
profiling
Establish a national plan / agenda, but not one that
entails everything; Free space is important (25-35%)
Focus on connectivity in the country, but also
international collaboration
Find right balance between specialization and
comprehensive approaches
Learning through education AND research – learning
economy
The way of the future
40
3rd industrial revolution (Rifkin), most countries still live in a 20th century’s technology, we should go for a innovation fit for 21 st
century, CO2 neutral, green, advanced internet / communication etc. [horizontal profiling]
Focus on strong local/regional development in EU and global context [horizontal / vertical profiling] ERAwatch: most decisions made on national level
More attention for social innovation, new ways of doing things, organizing things, connection 21st century innovation
Develop a strong evaluation culture, comprehensive nature, oriented towards the new production of knowledge / science 2.0 / science in transition