UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Uddannelses- og Forskningsudvalget 2015-16
UFU Alm.del
Offentligt

Was UNIK Unique?

Evaluation of effects from the Danish research

excellence initiative UNIK

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Was UNIK unique?

Evaluation of effects from the Danish research excellence initiative UNIK.

Published by

The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation

Bredgade 40

1260 Copenhagen K

Denmark

Phone: 3544 6200

Mail: [email protected]

www.ufm.dk

Produced by

IRIS Group

Jorcks Passage 1B, 4

1162 Copenhagen K

Denmark

Phone: 5125 1040

Mail: [email protected]

www.irisgroup.dk

Photo (front page): Shutterstock

Printed by the Danish Ministry for Higher Education and Science

This publication is available on www.ufm.dk/en

ISBN: 978-87-93151-86-4

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Contents

Chapter 1 Executive summary .................................................................................................. 4

1.1

1.2

English summary ............................................................................................................. 4

Dansk sammenfatning................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 2 Background ............................................................................................................ 18

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 18

Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................. 20

UNIK in relation to other forms of research funding ...................................................... 20

The international expert panel ...................................................................................... 24

Chapter 3 Approach and methodology................................................................................... 27

3.1

3.2

3.3

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 27

Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 28

Assessing the effects ..................................................................................................... 29

Chapter 4 Effects of UNIK – the institutional level.................................................................. 33

4.1

4.2

4.3

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 33

Institutional effects from UNIK ...................................................................................... 33

Final remarks ................................................................................................................ 37

Chapter 5 Effects of UNIK on research environments ............................................................. 39

5.1

5.2

5.3

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 39

Effects of UNIK on Research .......................................................................................... 39

Final remarks ................................................................................................................ 44

Chapter 6 Derived effects from UNIK and embedment .......................................................... 45

6.1

6.2

6.3

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 45

Derived effects of UNIK ................................................................................................. 45

Embedment of the UNIKs .............................................................................................. 47

Chapter 7 The application process ......................................................................................... 49

7.1

7.2

Impact of the application process.................................................................................. 49

Description of the typical application process ............................................................... 51

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 1

Executive summary

1.1

ENGLISH SUMMARY

UNIK (Investment Capital for University Research) was an ambitious research excellence initia-

tive launched in October 2009 by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

The initiative funded four interdisciplinary research programmes at three Danish universities –

the so-called “UNIKs”. It had the combined aim of promoting new challenge-driven, cross-disci-

plinary and excellent research, as well as enhancing the capacity of Danish universities to imple-

ment large-scale, cross-disciplinary research programmes.

The grants expired in 2014 after having funded the research activities for five years. During the

spring of 2015, an international expert panel conducted a final evaluation. The panel had origi-

nally selected the four UNIKs and subsequently followed the implementation and progress of

the initiatives continuously

. The evaluation of the international expert panel assessed the ef-

fects of the individual UNIKs in terms of:



Science and scientific output, i.e. publications, PhD-output, patents and international

collaboration.

Organisation, i.e. the organisational layout, governance-structures as well as depart-

ments and faculties participating.

Embedment, i.e. the continuation of the activities, employment of faculty members, etc.

The final evaluation pointed out that,

“(…) the four UNIK initiatives (…) have excelled in both

quantity and quality in a wide range of parameters such as novel approaches, high quality re-

search, internationalisation and promotion of cross-disciplinarity”.

However, while the international experts concluded that UNIK was an

effective

funding mecha-

nism in terms of producing science outputs, it did not document whether UNIK’s effects could

have been achieved through other forms of research funding.

Moreover, there is a need to evaluate in further details how UNIK – as a new, experimental

research funding scheme – created value to the host universities as well as for thoses universi-

ties that applied for the initiative, but did not host a UNIK.

The current Ministry of Higher Education and Science.

Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2015): “Annual report 2014 and final evaluation from the UNIK

Expert panel”

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

This evaluation will qualitatively assess the added, distinctive effects of the UNIK-initiative. It

also answers the question: If so, in which way was UNIK unique as an instrument of research

funding? In doing this, it also compares UNIK to other, existing sources of research funding.

Five questions will guide the evaluation at hand:



What forms of value creation did the UNIK-grants entail for the host universities besides

the direct research result?

What implications did UNIK entail for the host institutions, e.g. strategy development,

strategy implementation and internal organisation?

How does the impact of the UNIK-initiatives reflect itself in the embedment of the initi-

atives?

Do the effects of the UNIK-grants differ from effects of other large research grants? If

yes, in what way?

What effects did the UNIK-process entail for institutions that applied for a UNIK-grant

but did not receive it?

The evaluation is based on qualitative interviews with key stakeholders at all eight Danish uni-

versities. Hence, universities that hosted a UNIK, as well as those that did not. Furthermore, the

interviews have been conducted both at the university management level and at the level of

researchers. This in order to get a full picture of the effects at the institutional level and on

research.

1.1.1 Key findings

This evaluation generally confirms the positive effects of UNIK found by the international expert

panel. The analysis indicates that the initiative:



Was instrumental in strengthening the institutional coherence and capacity of the host

universities. Especially for universities, which underwent mergers at the time, UNIK

bridged organisational, cultural and academic gaps between research environments and

furthered advanced interdisciplinary collaboration.

Strengthened academic leadership and administrative capacity to work with large, com-

plex, interdisciplinary research programmes.

Helped the universities to focus their research strategies.

Provided a competitive, “high-risk-high-gain” arena in which the universities were com-

pelled to focus strategically on their excellent, interdisciplinary research spearheads.

Was a highly successful instrument of research funding in terms of creating a basis for

novel, ground-breaking, interdisciplinary research with a focus on grand societal chal-

lenges. Furthermore, the evaluation indicates that UNIK fostered scientific results that

would not easily have emerged through other instruments of research funding.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Fostered a significant number of young researchers equipped with the skills and mindset

to work in cross-disciplinary settings.

Enhanced international exposure and international networks of the participating re-

search environments vis-à-vis excellent peer environments abroad.

The evaluation shows how these effects can be attributed to UNIK’s distinctive scope and form

as a funding instrument:



Scale, i.e. large grants, which compelled the university management, in unison with re-

searchers, to think ambitiously and strategically about the university’s comparative

strengths and potential cross-disciplinary synergies.

Scale, which made it possible to finance the high transaction costs of venturing into high-

risk interdisciplinary research, e.g. in terms of planning and creating a common language

across academic disciplines.

Scope, i.e. UNIK’s focus on novelty, which initiated a process of identifying the research

flagships of the institutions and possible cross-disciplinary synergies between them.

Flexibility and many degrees of freedom, i.e. few ex-ante requirements, regarding top-

ics, conditions, allocation and few requirements regarding documentation. Overall, this

entailed a high level of autonomy for the academic leadership.

Formally, the university management was lead of the application and recipient of the

grant, allowing the management to use UNIK as a financial boost for the research prior-

ities of the university and consequently focus the institution’s research strategy.

The role of the international expert panel in monitoring the implementation and pro-

gress of the UNIKs as well as providing advice to the university management and re-

searchers.



These features and their resulting effects illustrate that UNIK addressed a gap in the existing

Danish research funding system, which no other public or private research-grants currently fill.

In some instances, UNIK constituted a bridge between smaller, novel science projects, currently

addressed through the Danish Council for Independent Research, and large-scale, excellence-

driven research programs, for example funded by the Danish National Research Foundation, ERC

(European Research Council) and certain private grants.

Moreover, some UNIKs functioned as a cross-disciplinary superstructure on top of existing (or

former) Centre of Excellences.

Moreover, it created a playground for young researchers that enabled them to work across ac-

ademic fields.

In addition, UNIK also carried positive effects on – among other things – research excellence,

organizational change and the attraction of external funding. However, the magnitude of these

effects was more influenced by contextual factors, e.g. pertaining to individual research envi-

ronments and the institutions they were embedded in. Such contextual factors include:

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



The governance structure. That is, the organizational framework and decision-making

structure surrounding the individual UNIK at various levels at the university. The specific

governance-structure especially influenced the institutional effects, e.g. the subsequent

embedment of interdisciplinary collaboration-models.

The motivation and skills of the individuals who participated. Especially, the academic

leadership and research coordinators played a very important role in making UNIK suc-

cessful.

The context of institutional mergers played a significant role, constituting a window of

opportunity for initiating cross-disciplinary initiatives at some universities.



1.1.2 Challenges and Perspectives

The interviewees were generally in favour of initiating a research excellence initiative like UNIK

in the future. There is a shared perception that UNIK “made a difference” in fostering novel

science and strengthening institutional capacity. Consequently, it is possible that similar effects

could be achieved again.

However, the interviewees emphasised a number of potential challenges and improvements if

a similar initiative should be considered in the future.

Originally, UNIK was a policy instrument devised to underpin a broader focus in Denmark on

institutional policy. The political impetus was the desire to create strong, capable universities,

which could compete with excellent universities worldwide and at the same time support na-

tional competitiveness.

It is crucial to ascertain to which extent the original objective of UNIK is still relevant in the cur-

rent context before taking any decisions on future research excellence programmes.

The answer to this question is not unequivocal. On one hand, the Danish universities have ma-

tured significantly during the last decade. Their management and managerial apparatus are

more capable than 7-8 years ago. Moreover, all universities have clear and well-defined research

strategies.

On the other hand, the process of enhancing the interdisciplinary coherence between academic

traditions, research-groups, departments etc. is still a work in progress – and will continue to be

so. Interdisciplinary, challenge-driven research is crucial in order to address the grand societal

challenges of the future as well as paving the way for tomorrow’s industries. In the current Dan-

ish research funding landscape there are few public policy instruments available that encourage

the type of big-scale, high-risk, novel science that serves these purposes.

Interviews with researchers and respondents from the university managements point to the fol-

lowing:



It should be considered whether future research excellence initiatives should focus

more clearly on fostering novel excellent interdisciplinary research areas, and less on

institutional capacity building.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Some universities (especially those that did not host a UNIK) expressed how the assess-

ment criteria of UNIK – namely the weight of excellence vis-à-vis novelty – were unclear.

Hence, some interviewees felt that the applications in the end were evaluated more on

the basis of traditional criteria rather than novelty and cross-disciplinarity. Although

there is not per se a contradiction between excellence and interdisciplinarity, future

calls should be more explicit on which assessment criteria will be emphasised in the

evaluation.

A key issue, brought up by all UNIKs (and the international expert panel), concerns the

time frame of five years. The time-horizon is generally viewed as being too short for

ambitious, original research programmes. The first two years were typically spent on

preparations e.g. facilities, research programmes, management, recruitment etc., leav-

ing only a few years to the core research activities. According to the universities, this led

to a situation in which researchers at an early stage began focusing on possible jobs after

the expiration date of the UNIKs, thereby making the progress of research more volatile.

Consequently, the interviewees expressed the desire to continue the successful ele-

ments and activities of the UNIK, by being able to apply for an extension after the five-

year period. Future initiatives should feature the option of extending (parts of) the grant

following an evaluation and re-application. The 6+4 year model of the Danish National

Research Foundation could, in that regard, serve as a template.

Likewise, whereas UNIK had a positive effect on the internal coherence of the host uni-

versities, it did not encourage a collaborative culture among research environments

across universities. Hence, future research excellence initiatives should consider foster-

ing inter-institutional collaboration as a mean to enhance scientific research objectives.

The size of grants were well suited to support research programs anchored in natural

science, health or technical science. But, as our interviews with non-UNIK universities

indicate, the size is generally too large for programs anchored within humanities or so-

cial science. It is, however, important to note that the call did not specify a specific size

of the grants, and applicants were free to apply for smaller grants.

The universities unanimously problematize what they perceive as the “hollowing out”

of institutional core funding relative to external funding. There exist a general trend

where universities are required to fund more activities from external funding without a

proportional increase in institutional core funding. Initiatives such as UNIK require large

investments in laboratories, conferences, organization, facilities etc., which strains core

funding. Future research excellence initiatives should consider the spin-off costs (in ad-

dition to the 44 pct. overhead, which was provided) associated by hosting such an initi-

ative.

The expert panel played a key role in making UNIK a success. Future initiatives should

also use this or a similar model. Future panels could consider involvement from non-

academic members.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



One host university emphasised the difficulties of establishing a well-functioning gov-

ernance-model supporting the UNIK. Future initiatives could require a more detailed

specification of the governance-model, so a suitable organisation is in place for both the

university management and scientific researchers from the beginning.

One university pointed out that it could be useful with a small associated pool of money

to finance feasibility studies before making the application. According to the university,

this could secure a better identification of research topics. In connection with future

initiatives this could be considered as a possible add-on to the scheme.

Likewise, it could be considered whether it should be possible to apply for smaller grants

to examine the business potential of an idea or a patent emerging from the research

activities.



1.1.3 UNIK compared to other funding sources

This evaluation shows that UNIK generally created a combination of effects, which are distinctive

for this instrument of research funding.

Therefore, UNIK did indeed create added value for the universities, and any other instruments

of research financing could most likely not have achieved the totality of UNIK’s effects.

Key observations include that:



Institutional core funding is typically disbursed much more evenly across the universi-

ties’ activities. Furthermore, it is to a large extent tied to technical-administrative costs

and salaries leaving a little room for the same degree of strategic focus present in UNIK.

As the Interdisciplinary Centres at the University of Aarhus as well as the 2016-pool at

the University of Copenhagen show, it is to some extent possible to prioritise basic fund-

ing for similar initiatives. However, the scale and scope of these internally financed

grants are significantly lower than UNIK.



The Danish National Research Foundation’s Centres of Excellence or the European Re-

search Council’s (ERC) grants are generally narrower in scope, focusing on specific, ex-

cellent research environments. Generally, they do not contain the same level of involve-

ment from different levels of the institution and across academic fields.

Large private endowments are at times significantly larger than UNIK

. Therefore, such

grants also become strategic priorities for the university management. However, they

do usually not involve the same level of intra-institutional collaboration. Furthermore,

they are often to a great extent earmarked for specific purposes.

The Danish Council of Independent Research generally disburse much smaller grants,

among other things with the purpose of supporting the broad base of young researchers



In some cases, significantly larger. For example, the Novo Nordisk Foundation granted 1.1 billion DKK for

use over ten years to the Center for Biosustainability at DTU in 2010-12.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

in their careers. These grants do not have the same strategic, institutional impact, nor

interdisciplinary inclination as UNIK.



The toolbox of Innovation Fund Denmark is generally much more focused on aca-

demia-business collaboration with clear short-term milestones and deliverables that

more directly can be transformed into value for businesses etc. In comparison, UNIK

carries a more long-term potential, supporting novel challenge-driven research that in

time could lead to the development of industries or business opportunities, which do

not exist today.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

1.2

DANSK SAMMENFATNING

UNIK (UNiversiteternes Investerings Kapital) var et ambitiøst forskningspolitisk initiativ, der blev

lanceret i oktober 2009 af det daværende Ministerium for Videnskab, Teknologi og Innovation

Det primære formål med initiativet var at fremme forskning i verdensklasse på de danske uni-

versiteter. Desuden havde initiativet til formål at styrke universiteternes institutionelle kapacitet

– herunder institutionernes autonomi, ledelseskraft og evne til at gennemføre tværdisciplinær

forskning – på et tidspunkt, hvor universitetssektoren gennemgik en række omfattede foran-

dringer.

UNIK-midlerne blev udmøntet til excellente, nyskabende forskningsprogrammer (de såkaldte

”UNIKer”), der havde stor strategisk betydning for det enkelte universitet såvel som betydning

for dansk forskning generelt. Derudover blev der lagt vægt på, at de enkelte UNIKer skulle

munde ud i synergiskabende, excellent og internationalt anerkendt forskning på et lovende

forskningsområde.

Der blev afsat 480 mio. kr. til UNIK. Efter en konkurrence mellem 28 projektansøgninger blev

puljen fordelt på i alt fire forskningsprogrammer på tre forskellige universiteter (KU, DTU og AU);



Forskning i at forstå hjernen bedre (MINDLab)

Design af kunstige biologiske systemer (Centre for Synthetic Biology)

Lagring af vedvarende energi via katalyseteknologi (CASE)

Forebyggelse af livsstilssygdomme (Food, Fitness and Pharma for Health and Disease).

Bevillingerne udløb i 2014. I foråret 2015 blev de enkelte UNIKer evalueret af et internationalt

ekspertpanel. Panelet var i sin tid blevet nedsat til at evaluere ansøgningerne og udvælge de

UNIK’er, der blev indstillet til at opnå finansiering, og har løbende fulgt deres udvikling og resul-

tater.

Panelets afsluttende evaluering konkluderede, at UNIK var en succes målt på en lang række

kvantitative parametre som fx publikationer, ekstern finansiering, antal ph.d.er, post.docs, pa-

tenter mv. Herudover pegede evalueringen bl.a. på, at UNIK medvirkede til at fremme excellent,

tværdisciplinær forskning samt internationaliseringen af værtsinstitutionerne.

Men selv om evalueringen viste, at UNIK resulterede i et stort videnskabeligt output, så blev det

ikke kortlagt, hvorvidt effekterne kunne have været opnået gennem andre, eksisterende typer

forskningsfinansiering.

Derudover er der behov for i nærmere detaljer at evaluere, hvordan UNIK – som et nyt, ekspe-

rimentelt instrument til forskningsfinansiering – har skabt værdi for værtsuniversiteterne og an-

søgere.

I dag: Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Formålet med denne effektevaluering er således at skabe et kvalitativt supplement til ekspert-

panelets slutevaluering. Effektevalueringen skal belyse UNIK-virkemidlet holdt op mod andre

store forskningsbevillinger, samt hvorvidt og hvordan UNIK-initiativet har påvirket de ansøgende

institutioner (inkl. de institutioner, der ikke modtog midler) strategisk og organisatorisk.

Fem spørgsmål ligger til grund for denne evaluering:



Hvilken værditilførsel har UNIK-bevillingerne medført for værtsinstitutionerne – ud over

de forskningsmæssige resultater?

Hvilken betydning har UNIK haft for værtsinstitutionerne, fx i forhold til strategiudvik-

ling, strategiimplementering og organisering?

Hvordan afspejles UNIK-initiativernes betydning i indlejringen af initiativerne?

Adskiller effekten af UNIK-bevillingerne sig fra effekten af andre store forskningsbevil-

linger? Hvis ja, hvordan?

Hvilken effekt har UNIK haft i forhold til de institutioner, der ikke modtog bevilling?

Evalueringen tager udgangspunkt i en række kvalitative interviews med ledelsesrepræsentanter

og nøgleaktører på alle danske universiteter – inklusive de universiteter, som ikke modtog be-

villinger.

1.2.1 Hovedkonklusioner

Overordnet bekræfter denne effektevaluering de hovedresultater, som det internationale ek-

spertpanel også identificerede.

Vores konklusion er, at følgende effekter entydigt kan tilskrives UNIK:



Medvirkede til at styrke den institutionelle kapacitetsopbygning og organisatoriske sam-

menhæng på de deltagende universiteter. Især for de institutioner, der havde gennem-

gået fusioner, fungerede UNIK som et middel til at bygge bro mellem forskningsmiljøer

og fremme tværdisciplinær forskning.

Skabte grundlag for stærkere ledelse og styring af store, tværdisciplinære forsknings-

satsninger.

Medvirkede til at fokusere universiteternes forskningsstrategier.

Var medvirkende til at etablere et solidt grundlag for nyskabende, banebrydende og

tværdisciplinær forskning – med fokus på store samfundsmæssige udfordringer. Effekt-

evalueringen peger endvidere på, at UNIK skabte forskningsresultater, som sandsynlig-

vis ville have være vanskelige at opnå i samme omfang via andre, eksisterende instru-

menter i det offentlige forskningsfinansieringssystem.

Stillede universiteterne i en risikofyldt – men potentielt udbytterig – konkurrencesitua-

tion, hvilket fordrede, at universiteterne selv fokuserede strategisk på deres excellente,

tværfaglige spydspidser.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Udklækkede et betragteligt antal unge forskere, der udviklede tværdisciplinære kompe-

tencer samt et tværfagligt mindset.

Styrkede de deltagende universiteters internationale eksponering og netværk ift. excel-

lente miljøer i udlandet.

Evalueringen viser desuden, at disse effekter i høj grad er et resultat af en række særlige egen-

skaber ved UNIK vis-a-vis andre typer forskningsfinansiering. Disse særtræk omfatter:



Skala.

Det vil sige store bevillinger, der medførte, at universitetsledelsen og forskerne

tænkte ambitiøst og strategisk omkring universitetets komparative styrker og potenti-

elle tværfaglige synergier.

Skala.

UNIKs størrelse gjorde det muligt at finansiere de store transaktionsomkostnin-

ger, der er forbundet med at igangsætte tværdisciplinlre forskningssatsninger, fx i form

af organisering, planlægning og udfordringer forbundet med at skabe et fælles ”sprog”

på tværs af akademiske siloer.

Tværdisciplinær spændvidde.

Det vil sige, at UNIKs fokus på nyskabende forskning

fremmede en proces fokuseret på at identificere institutionernes forskningsmæssige

flagskibe og potentielle synergier mellem forskningsområder.

Fleksibilitet og store frihedsgrader.

Initiativets relativt få tildelingskriterier, fx i forhold

til emner, afrapportering, dokumentation og udbetaling af tilskud, skabte en betydelig

autonomi for den akademiske ledelse.

Universitetsledelsens rolle som bevillingsmodtager og bevillingshaver.

Muliggjorde at

ledelsen kunne benytte UNIK til at understøtte universitetets forskningsstrategiske pri-

oriteringer.

Det internationale ekspertpanel

spillede en central rolle i etableringen og udmøntnin-

gen af de enkelte UNIKer, fx i forhold til rådgivning af forskningsledelsen.



Disse særtræk kombineret med de opnåede resultater indikerer, at UNIK udfyldte et ”hul” i det

danske forskningsfinansieringssystem.

I nogle tilfælde fungerede UNIK som en brobygger mellem nyskabende, eksperimenterede pro-

jekter, som primært finansieres via Det Frie Forskningsråd, og større excellencefokuserede

forskningsprogrammer som fx Danmarks Grundforskningsfonds Centres of Excellence (CoE),

visse ERC-bevillinger og private fondsmidler.

Andre UNIKer fungerede som en tværdisciplinær overbygning på eksisterende eller tidligere

CoE.

Derudover udgjorde UNIK en slags “sandkasse” for unge forskere, som gjorde det muligt for dem

at arbejde på tværs af akademiske siloer.

UNIK havde også en positiv indvirkning på tre andre områder – forskningskvalitet, organisatori-

ske forandringer samt tiltrækning af eksterne midler. Men omfanget af disse effekter varierer

på tværs af UNIKerne og er i høj grad påvirket af

kontekstuelle

faktorer. De kontekstuelle fakto-

rer omfatter bl.a.:

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Styringsmodeller.

Der var på tværs af UNIKerne forskelle i de organisatoriske rammer,

forankring af ansvar, organisering af beslutningskompetence samt forankringen i uni-

versitetsledelsen. De varierende styringsmodeller havde især betydning for de instituti-

onelle effekter, fx i forhold til indlejring af aktiviteter – og dermed om UNIKerne skabte

varige organisatoriske forandringer.

Ledelseskompetencer og motivation blandt deltagerne i UNIK-projekterne.

Især kvali-

teten af forskningsledelsen og de administrative koordinatorers kompetencer og enga-

gement spillede en central rolle for effekterne på forskningskvalitet vis-a-vis andre fi-

nansieringsinstrumenter.

Fusioner.

For universiteter, der havde undergået fusioner, skabte UNIK et vindue for at

stimulere samarbejde og organisatoriske forandringer.



1.2.2 Udfordringer og perspektiver

Interviewpersonerne var generelt positivt stemt for en eventuel relancering af UNIK eller et nyt

UNIK-lignende initiativ. Der er blandt interviewpersonerne en fælles opfattelse af, at UNIK har

gjort en væsentlig forskel, både for forskningen og den institutionelle kapacitet på universite-

terne. Det er ligeledes opfattelsen, at lignende effekter med en vis sandsynlighed ville kunne

opnås i et nyt initiativ.

Ikke desto mindre pegede interviewpersonerne på en række potentielle udfordringer og forbed-

ringspotentialer ift. potentielle fremtidige initiativer.

UNIK var oprindeligt et politisk redskab, som blev lanceret med henblik på at understøtte et

bredere politisk fokus på institutionspolitik. Der var et mål om at skabe handlekraftige, auto-

nome universiteter, som af egen drift kunne konkurrere med eliteuniversiteter globalt samt

medvirke til at understøtte Danmarks konkurrencedygtighed. I forbindelse med et fremtidigt

UNIK-lignende initiativ er det naturligvis væsentligt at vurdere, hvorvidt dette behov fortsat er

til stede.

Svaret på dette spørgsmål er ikke entydigt. På den ene side har de danske universiteter gennem-

gået en stor udvikling i løbet af det seneste årti. Institutionernes ledelseskraft og styringskapa-

citet er i dag væsentligt stærkere end for 7-8 år siden, og alle institutioner arbejder i dag med

udgangspunkt i ambitiøse forskningsstrategier.

På den anden side er der stadig brug for at bygge bro og skabe sammenhæng mellem de klassi-

ske akademiske ”siloer” – også inden for hovedområderne. Interdisciplinær, udfordringsdrevet

forskning er en afgørende forudsætning for at adressere store samfundsmæssige udfordringer,

fx inden for klima og aldring, samt for opdyrkningen af fremtidens industrier. I det nuværende

offentlige forskningsfinansieringssystem er der ingen finansieringsredskaber, der har et interdi-

sciplinært fokus sammenkoblet med en volumen, der fuldt ud kan sammenlignes med UNIK.

Vores interviews peger på følgende læringspunkter, som bør overvejes i forbindelse med lig-

nende initiativer i fremtiden:

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Forskningsexcellenceprogrammer som UNIK bør fremadrettet fokusere mere på at

fremme nye, tværdisciplinære forskningsområder og mindre på institutionel kapacitets-

opbygning.

Nogle universiteter (især dem, der ikke var værter for en UNIK) giver udtryk for, at vægt-

ningen mellem henholdsvis excellence og interdisciplinaritet/originalitet var uklar i det

oprindelige opslag. Enkelte interviewpersoner oplevede, at ansøgningerne i sidste ende

blev bedømt mere ud fra traditionelle excellence-kriterier end på originalitet og tværdi-

sciplinaritet. Om end der i udgangspunktet ikke er modstrid mellem excellence og tvær-

disciplinaritet, bør fremtidige initiativer præcisere den relative betydning af de forskel-

lige kriterier.

Alle universiteter og UNIKer – samt det internationale ekspertpanel – problematiserer

tidshorisonten på fem år. Tidshorisonten er i de fleste tilfælde for kort til for alvor at

løfte ambitiøse, nyskabende forskningsprogrammer i samme skala som UNIK. De første

to år bruges typisk på forberedelse af fx forskningsinfrastruktur, underprojekter, admi-

nistration, rekruttering osv., hvilket kun levner et par år til kerneaktiviteterne. Ifølge in-

terviewpersonerne medførte dette, at nogle forskere på et relativt tidligt tidspunkt be-

gyndte at fokusere på deres næste job, hvilket medførte ustabilitet og usikkerhed om-

kring forskningsprojekterne.

Desuden har interviewpersonerne udtrykt et ønske om bedre rammer for fortsæt-

telse/indlejring af de succesfulde elementer af den enkelte UNIK. Fremtidige initiativer

bør indbefatte muligheder for at forlænge aktiviteterne efter endt bevilling. Danmarks

Grundforskningsfonds 6+4 ordning kan evt. benyttes som model.

Om end UNIK har haft en positiv effekt på den interne sammenhæng på værtsuniversi-

teterne, har UNIK ikke medført en større grad af samarbejdskultur mellem forsknings-

miljøer fra forskellige universiteter. Det bør overvejes, hvorvidt fremtidige initiativer bør

fremhæve muligheder for projekter på tværs af universiteterne.

UNIK-tilskuddenes størrelse har været velegnet til at understøtte forskning inden for de

”våde” områder, dvs. naturvidenskab, sundhedsvidenskab og teknisk videnskab. Inter-

view med universiteter, som ikke opnåede en UNIK-bevilling, indikerer, at størrelsen på

de potentielle UNIK-satsninger blev oplevet som for store til humaniora og samfundsvi-

denskab, om end der i opslaget ikke var angivet nogen nedre grænse for det beløb, der

kunne søges om.

Universiteterne problematiserer generelt, hvad de beskriver som ”udhulingen af basis-

midlerne” i forhold til ekstern konkurrenceudsat finansiering. Det vil sige tendensen hen

imod, at en større andel af universiteternes forskning finansieres af eksterne midler

uden, at basismidlerne vokser proportionalt. Initiativer som UNIK kræver typisk betrag-

telige investeringer i fx laboratorier og andre faciliteter, som ifølge universiteterne kun

delvist dækkes af overheadfinansieringen. I fremtidige initiativer bør det overvejes, om

de indirekte omkostninger i tilstrækkelig grad er dækket via overhead.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Det internationale ekspertpanel spillede en central rolle i at gøre UNIK til en succes.

Fremadrettede initiativer bør også tage denne model i anvendelse. Men i lyset af et evt.

justeret formål og fokus, bør panelets sammensætning overvejes nøje, fx med hensyn

til medlemmernes akademiske baggrund og evt. inddragelse af andre typer af eksterne

aktører.

Et værtsuniversitet betonede vanskelighederne ved at etablere en velfungerende gover-

nance model for UNIK. Fremtidige initiativer kunne indeholde et krav om en nærmere

beskrivelse af styringsmodellen for den enkelte UNIK.

Et universitet fremhævede, at det kunne være fordelagtigt med en mindre pulje til fi-

nansiering af forundersøgelser forud for ansøgningen. Ifølge universitetet kunne det

sikre en bedre afsøgning af egnede forskningsemner og synergimuligheder, hvilket

kunne højne kvaliteten af de endelige ansøgninger.

Der kunne indføres en mulighed for at søge mindre tilskud til at undersøge det forret-

ningsmæssige potentiale i en idé eller et patent (undervejs i UNIK-projektets forløb).



1.2.3 UNIK sammenlignet med andre finansieringskilder

Evalueringen peger på, at UNIK som instrument skabte en kombination af effekter, som adskiller

sig væsentligt fra andre finansieringskilder. UNIK medførte en klar merværdi for de deltagende

universiteter, og meget tyder på, at det ville have været vanskeligt at opnå de samme virkninger

gennem mere traditionel forskningsfinansiering:



Basismidler til forskning spredes typisk mere ligeligt ud over institutionernes forsknings-

områder, hvilket ikke giver mulighed for den samme grad af strategisk prioritering som

UNIK. Basisfinansiering er desuden i høj grad knyttet til teknisk-administrative omkost-

ninger samt lønninger.

Ikke desto mindre illustrerer andre satsninger (som Aarhus Universitets interdiscipli-

nære centre og 2016-puljen ved Københavns Universitet), at det til en vis grad er muligt

at prioritere basismidler til lignende initiativer. Disse initiativer har dog ikke den samme

skala eller grad af tværdisciplinær inddragelse som UNIK.



Danmarks Grundforskningsfonds Centres of Excellence og de forskellige typer af ERC-

bevillinger (European Research Council) er generelt mere fokuserede på specifikke, ex-

cellente forskningsmiljøer. Det vil sige, at det snarere er faglig dybde end bredde, der er

formålet med disse typer bevillinger. Sammenlignet med UNIK er disse bevillinger såle-

des typisk uden den samme grad af tværdisciplinær og tværinstitutionel involvering.

Private fonde uddeler undertiden bevillinger i en størrelsesorden, som er sammenligne-

lig med UNIK

. Disse store bevillinger får naturligt strategisk betydning for universitetets



Eller væsentlig større – som eksempel kan nævnes Novo Nordisk Fondens bevilling på 1.1 mia. DKK over

10 år (fra 2012) til Center for Biosustainability på DTU.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

ledelse på samme vis som UNIK. Men de involverer sjældent det samme niveau af sam-

arbejde på tværs af institutter og fakulteter. Desuden er de typisk betydeligt mere bun-

det til øremærkede formål, der har strategisk betydning for fondens virke.



Det Frie Forskningsråds bevillinger har typisk en betydeligt mindre størrelse end UNIK,

og formålet er normalt at understøtte vækstlaget af unge forskere tidligt i deres karrie-

reforløb. Disse tilskud medfører derfor ikke de samme strategiske, institutionelle eller

tværdisciplinære effekter som UNIK.

Bevillingsinstrumenterne i Innovationsfonden er generelt meget mere markedsnære og

dermed fokuseret på erhvervssamarbejde og teknologiudvikling med klart specificerede

milepæle og projektleverancer. Fonden understøtter generelt forskning som mere ”di-

rekte” kan omdannes til værdi for virksomheder. UNIK har et mere langsigtet potentiale,

qua initiativets fokus på udfordringsdreven grundforskning, der med tiden kan føre til

udvikling af industrier eller forretningsmuligheder, som ikke eksisterer i dag.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 2

Background

2.1

INTRODUCTION

UNIK (Investment Capital for University Research) was an ambitious Danish research excellence

initiative launched in October 2009 by the then Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and In-

novation.

The primary aim of UNIK was to further the advancement of world-class research at Danish uni-

versities. Secondly, the initiative aimed at strengthening the institutional capacity of the univer-

sities. Thirdly, UNIK was conceived in order to enhance the impact of research on national com-

petitiveness.

Following a competition among 28 applications from all eight Danish universities, UNIK allocated

approximately 64m Euro (480m DKK) to four interdisciplinary research programmes at three

Danish universities. The four programmes, coined “UNIKs”, included:



“MindLab” at the University of Aarhus focused on interdisciplinary research leading to

a better understanding of the mind.

“Food, Fitness and Pharma for Health and Disease” at the University of Copenhagen fo-

cused on interdisciplinary prevention of lifestyle diseases.

“Synthetic Biology” at the University of Copenhagen focused on design of artificial bio-

logical systems.

“Catalysis for Sustainable Energy” (CASE) at the Technical University of Denmark focused

on storage of renewable energy by using catalytic technology.

These four initiatives were the final results of an extensive application and review process. First,

the process consisted of an internal selection process at the universities resulting in 28 applica-

tions. Secondly, a review process, where an international expert panel peer reviewed the appli-

cations and provided recommendations on the selection of the scientific research projects to

receive funding. Lastly, the Minister selected the grants eligible for funding on the basis of the

recommendations.

The UNIK applications were reviewed in light of their potential for "large, long-term research in

areas academically important for the university and for Danish research”, as well as their “qual-

ity and relevance for society". Furthermore, few overarching criteria were used to assess the

UNIKs. They included:



Potential for development of excellent research and maturity of research at the highest

international level.

Novelty regarding ambition and potentials for ground-breaking research results.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



International collaboration.

Relevance for society, research or education.

Fostering young researchers (PhDs and PostDocs).

The international panel subsequently supported and followed the progress and implementation

of UNIK throughout its five-year history.

From the outset, the character and criteria of the UNIK-scheme were different from most other

forms of public research funding. The individual grants were relatively large in scale and were

provided as grants to the universities as institutions – with relatively few strings attached.

The logic behind this approach was that the grants would enable the recipient universities to

support large interdisciplinary, high-risk research-programmes – grounded in research strate-

gies and excellent research environments at the universities.

At the same time, UNIK would require extensive engagement and cooperation from many levels

of the institutions. It would entail significant demands on both the university management, as

well as the academic management. Thus, UNIK was designed to strengthen the institutional

steering capacity of the university management.

It is important to note that the introduction of UNIK happened at a time of substantial, structural

changes in the Danish university sector.

During the last decades, universities globally have been subject to a debate on their role in sup-

porting national competitiveness. In particular, the quality and impact of publically financed re-

search have been viewed as key factors in enhancing universities’ societal impact.

Since the early 1990s, Denmark has pursued a number of wide-reaching reforms of the univer-

sity sector and the national funding mechanisms for research. The general aim of these changes

has been to develop more autonomous and capable universities, and concurrently create a more

coherent funding system for high-impact excellent research. The impetus has been to enhance

research’s impact on society, business and innovation.

Among other things, this has entailed a substantial managerial reform of the universities’ boards

and management structures, following the University Act of 2003. The reform aimed at strength-

ening the institutional capacity and coherence of Danish universities. In 2006, the Danish “Glob-

alization Strategy” led to a number of mergers of universities and government research institu-

tions during 2006-2009. These changes were supported via substantial funding through the

Globalisation Pool

Additionally, changes in the funding landscape involved the establishment of the Danish Na-

tional Research Foundation (DNRF) in 1991, The Danish Council for Independent Research in

2004, The Danish Council for Strategic Research in 2004, and finally, in 2014, the establishment

The globalisation pool allocated approximately 5.7 billion euro to a wide range of public investments in

research, education and innovation during the period 2007-2012. The aim was to help make Denmark the

most competitive nation by 2015. The pool allocated around 3.1 billion euro to research. Out of these,

around 40 per cent was disbursed to institutional core funding at the universities.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

of the Innovation Fund Denmark. The latter merged three former public funding councils of stra-

tegic research and innovation, including the Danish Council for Strategic Research.

The UNIK grants expired in 2014. An extension of the initiative has not been launched. In 2015,

the international expert panel delivered its final evaluation of the four UNIK-programmes focus-

ing on research results and their output. Those conclusions will be presented in section 2.4.

2.2

PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

This effect-evaluation builds upon, and complements, the results of the evaluation panel, but

seeks to achieve a better qualitative understanding of the effects, focusing on UNIK as a research

policy instrument.

Thus, this evaluation aims to examine the effects of the UNIK-funding instrument, and compare

these effects with other key modes of research funding. In other words, is UNIK a “unique” re-

search funding initiative, or could the effects have been accomplished through other forms of

research funding?

Five questions will guide the evaluation:



What forms of value creation have the UNIK-grants entailed for the host universities

besides the direct research results?

What implications did UNIK entail for the host institutions, e.g. concerning strategy de-

velopment and organisation?

How does the impact of the UNIK-initiatives reflect itself in the embedment of the initi-

atives?

Does the effect of the UNIK-grants distinguish itself from the effects of other big re-

search grants? If yes, how?

What effects did the UNIK-process entail for the institutions, which applied but did not

receive a grant?

Initially, the report will consider UNIK in a comparative light vis-à-vis the broader landscape of

research funding (chapter 3). Subsequently, it will sketch out the methodological approach used

to assess the distinctive effects of UNIK (chapter 4). Following that, the report will examine the

effects of the UNIK application process, which also involved the universities that did not succeed

in obtaining a UNIK grant (Chapter 5). The following chapters will assess the institutional (6),

research-related (7) and derived effects of UNIK (8) as well as the causal factors behind.

2.3

UNIK IN RELATION TO OTHER FORMS OF RESEARCH FUNDING

UNIK was a Danish “Research Excellence Initiative” (REI). It belongs to a family of research policy

instruments, which in various shapes and sizes have been launched across a number of countries

during the last decades. Examples abound, elements of the German Excellence Initiative and the

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Swedish Linnaeus Initiative featured similar objectives and characteristics

. Across countries,

REIs share the generic traits illustrated in box 2.1.

Box 2.1 Research Excellence Initiatives



The national government finances selected research units and institutions.

Focus on exceptional quality in research and research-related activities.

Long-term funding (a minimum of four years).

Funds are competitive and are distributed based on peer-reviewed applications.

Applicants are required to participate in selection processes with fixed time frames.

Institutions (instead of individuals) apply for the fund as an entity.

Funding is substantially larger than for individual project-based funding (a general lower limit

of approximately 1 million euro a year per centre).

Source: OECD (2014); “Research Excellence Initiatives: A new form of competitive research funding”

On a more general level, REIs distinguish themselves by combining features from both institu-

tional core funding (Danish: “basismidler”) and competition-based project funding.

Similar to institutional core funding, REIs have a strong focus on strengthening the institutional

steering capacity of universities. They provide an ample volume of research funding to be used

over a medium- to long-term period to designated research units of importance. Hence, the

research funding supports and enhances the research agenda as well as the competiveness of

the university. Futhermore, REIs are designed to support outstanding, interdisciplinary and

problem-driven research programmes.

The table below illustrates how REIs, such as UNIK, are placed between institutional core funding

and project-based funding.

See OECD (2014):”Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to Funding” for an elaborate over-

view of the many models for Research Excellence Initiatives across OECD-countries.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Table 2.1 Comparison of research funding instruments

Institutional

core funding

(”Basismidler”)

Purpose

Institutional capacity

REI funding

(e.g. UNIK)

Research excellence and

institutional

capacity

Universities

Finite and minimum four

year

Medium-Large

Project funding

Varying

Researchers and groups of

researchers

Finite and varying

Small-Medium

(with exceptions)

Recipients

Time-

frame

Size of

grants

Universities

Annual (national budget

line)

Very large

Allocation

Ex-post, Non-competitive,

but may be linked to insti-

tutional performance

Few

Ex ante, competitive

Allocation

criteria

Few

Varying depending on

scheme

Source: OECD (2014): Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to funding.

The left side column of the table depicts the attributes associated with institutional core funding.

Core funding enables the universities, as institutions, to allocate and prioritize funds internally

according to their own strategic research agenda. Thus, it is a flexible funding mechanism with

few strings attached for the university to uphold.

As such, the impact on research and the institution depends on the university’s own funding

priorities and allocation systems. A substantial share of core funding is in reality disbursed to

costs, which are only indirectly linked to research, i.e. administration, rent, salaries, technical

infrastructure, consumption of electricity, water etc.

In contrast, project funding comes in many different forms, but is generally aimed at researchers

or research groups receiving funds over finite time periods for specific projects, programs or

research centres

. The box describes a number of key project funding sources that carry a

re-

search excellence focus:

OECD (2014):”Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to Funding”.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Box 2.2. Research funding sources



The Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF) has since 1991 focused on supporting re-

search excellence at the highest international level. The primary funding instrument of the

foundation is the “Centres-of-Excellence”. The instrument supports large, excellent research

programs. The grants are typically at the level of 7m-13m euros spread over 6+4 years.

The

grants are allocated to research groups directly.

Grants from private research foundations/endowments. E.g. the Novo Nordisk Foundation,

Gates Foundation etc. provide long-term and very large grants to excellent research units or

areas. The foundations are especially active in areas where Danish research and/or businesses

have certain strengths and/or where the foundations have special interests.

Grants from the European Research Council (ERC). The objective is to support excellent frontier

research. The program features a variety of different funding instruments, typically around

1.5-3-5m Euro per annum. ERC’s largest grants are the Synergy Grants, supporting excellent

research environments with up to 15m Euro over six years.

Grants from the former Danish Council for Strategic Research (today Innovation Fund Den-

mark) and especially the Danish Council for Independent Research are smaller than UNIK and

Centres of Excellence. The new Innovation Fund Denmark funds more strategic challenge-

driven, interdisciplinary research, featuring involvement and co-financing from the private sec-

tor. The Danish Council for Independent Research supports bottom-up independent research

projects and provides support for young researchers. These grants have often served as a start-

ing point for building up excellent research environments and attracting additional funding



Source: Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science and IRIS Group.

Project funding naturally focuses on the specific project rather than the host institution at large.

Some forms of project funding are provided to bottom-up research, whereas other grants are

disbursed to more thematic, strategic research projects.

Research Excellence Initiatives, including UNIK, strike a balance between these two forms of

research funding. On one hand, they are based on competition and focused on specific research

programmes within a limited period. They are furthermore allocated ex ante in line with project

funding. On the other hand, they have a strong focus on enhancing institutional capacity and

research excellence as a means to improve national competitiveness – similar to institutional

core funding.

UNIK’s template of a research excellence initiative is similar. In a Danish context, it was a novel

research policy instrument. Some of the specific features that made “UNIK unique” include:



Applications for UNIK had to be coordinated and administered by the institution’s man-

agement rather than individual researchers. Hence, the research of the individual UNIKs

had to be of importance for the university research from a strategic perspective.

Consequently, the lead recipient of the grant was the institution rather than e.g. an in-

dividual researcher or group. The administration of the grant was thus left to the uni-

versity management.



Evaluation of the Danish Council For Independent Research

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



There were very few application criteria and strings attached with regard to adminis-

trating the funds (e.g. reporting, monitoring etc.) and to the content of the research.

This allowed the institutions to prioritize more risk-prone research. However, research

projects eligible for UNIK-funding should emphasize interdisciplinarity and strive for re-

search excellence at the highest international level.

The grants were relatively large and had to be disbursed within a limited time frame (5

years).



2.4

THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERT PANEL

A panel of international experts assisted the establishment and implementation of the UNIK-

initiative. Furthermore, the panel has continuously followed the status and progress of the indi-

vidual UNIKs. The expert panel submitted their final evaluation in the spring of 2015.

Box 2.3 Members of the international expert panel

The panel was comprised of the following experts;



Professor Jarle Aarbakke, (Former) Rector of the University of Tromsø, Norway

Professor Bart de Moor, Belgium

Professor Geoffrey Channon, United Kingdom

Professor Harriet Wallberg-Henriksen, Sweden

Professor Emeritus Helga Haftendorn, Germany

Professor Lennart Hjalmarsson, Sweden

Professor Martin J. Kropff, the Netherlands

Professor Olli Ikkala, Finland

Professor Pär Omling, Sweden

Professor Pirjo Nuutila, Finland

Findings of the international evaluation panel were based on a combination of qualitatively

based site visits at the individual UNIKs as well as quantitative data. It was reported in a number

of reports and minutes. The panel particularly focused on three elements in the valuations of

the individual UNIKs:



Scientific output

(publications, research impact and educational achievements).

Organisation

(the internal set-up and outreach of the UNIKs and how the four individual

initiatives have been managed by the responsible host institutions).

Embedment

(continuation of the activities and financing).

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

The table below sums up some of the key outputs reported by the international evaluation

panel. It illustrates, among other things that the UNIK initiative, as such, has resulted in a sub-

stantial number of scientific publications, PhDs and Postdocs, as well as attracting funding from

external sources. It also shows a number of differences between the UNIKs, e.g. the number of

departments that have been involved during the UNIK process and the number of patents filed:

Table 2.2 Selected scientific outputs from UNIK

Synthetic Biology

FFP

MindLab

CASE

Publications

317

230

536

121

PhDs

Postdocs

Departments

involved

External funding

(million DKK)

Patents (+ additi-

onal applications)

399

200

291

238

5 (1)

4 (11)

These numbers alone say relatively little about the actual impact and quality of the scientific

output. However, the conclusions of the international panel were also provided on the basis of

qualitative measures through their site visits and discussions with the UNIKs. The panel found

that UNIK as a scientific research initiative has been a major success when looking at the Danish

research landscape overall. The box sums up the main findings from the final evaluation of the

panel:

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Box 2.4 Main findings of the international expert panel

The evaluation concluded that:



UNIK has fostered sustainable and excellent cross-disciplinary research undertakings.

UNIK has furthered the internationalisation of the host institutions by encouraging high researcher

mobility and by raising the international reputation of the funded environments.

UNIK has boosted the growth layer of young researchers within the research areas of the initiatives,

and many young talented scientists are continuing their carrier in research positions at the involved

universities or at other Danish or international research institutions.

UNIK has laid the ground for professionalization and advancement of the research administrations

at the host universities, leading the initiatives to be optimal platforms for strategic planning and

attraction of third party funding.

UNIK has provided the right amount of trust and instrumental flexibility to allow for individual ini-

tiatives to adapt and structure the organisation. This in accordance with their ambitious strategies

and the main principles of UNIK, e.g. cross-disciplinarity and internationalisation.

UNIK has had a substantial organisational impact on the host institutions and contributed to form-

ing new synergies by encouraging the universities to prioritise their research agendas and carry

out their main priority.

UNIK has secured continuity and progress in the initiatives by tying the funding to the initiative

instead of the researcher.

The grantees' experience in academic management and management combined with scientific ex-

cellence is a pivotal premise for the successful outcome of the initiatives.

The UNIK initiative would have benefitted considerably from a longer funding period.

UNIK is coherent with the general Danish research funding landscape, e.g. as a continuation of the

centres of excellence funded by the Danish National Research Foundation.



However, on its own the international evaluation does not document, whether the effects are

particular for the UNIK funding instrument, or whether the effects could have been achieved

through other means, e.g. an internal allocation of institutional core funding to relevant research

environments.

Moreover, the international evaluation does not isolate the effects of UNIK vis-a-vis other fac-

tors that could have played a role in what was achieved. Thus, it is not entirely clear, to which

extent UNIK was a particularly effective public research-funding scheme in its own right, and

which specific features of the scheme that led to the effects.

This evaluation will go deeper into the qualitative effects of UNIK, and the context linked to

these effects. Furthermore, it will examine whether these effects could have been achieved

through other research funding instruments. The next chapter will describe the approach and

methods used.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 3

Approach and methodology

3.1

INTRODUCTION

This evaluation examines the effects of UNIK – and the causal factors behind – through a quali-

tative approach. The primary empirical basis consists of a number of group interviews with key

stakeholders at the universities. Finally, we have drawn on desk research – in particular the ex-

tensive material compiled by the international expert panel.

The methodology will focus on three key questions:



What are the (realised and expected) effects of UNIK on institutions, on research and

derived effects, e.g. education, business collaboration etc.?

What are the causal factors behind, i.e. the specific characteristics of the UNIK financing

instrument that led to these effects?

To what extend could these effects have been achieved through other forms of research

funding?

The outcome of the interviews will be analysed by using a transversal approach. Hence, the ef-

fects and causal factors, observed through the interviews, will be assessed by comparing the

reflections and statements across universities as well as between the university management

level and researchers participating in the UNIKs.

This approach is necessary in order to ascertain individual effects of UNIK – also vis-à-vis other

forms of funding - in light of a number of methodological challenges:



Memory.

The evaluation will cover events that have taken place within the last seven

years. The time dimension plays an important role in the assessment of the effects.

Besides the questionable reliability of long-term memories, key stakeholders’ job posi-

tions may have changed in the meantime.

Time lag of effects.

Organising and implementing large research initiatives such as UNIK

take time to establish and function properly. This implies that the full scale of the effects

is still to unfold.

Causality.

The apparent effects of a specific financing instrument for research funding

might be caused or amplified by other possible causal factors. For example, the impact

of additional external funding or parts of what came to constitute the UNIKs were al-

ready initiated beforehand.

Context.

The historical, organisational and cultural environment in which the UNIK-ini-

tiatives occurred, e.g. institutional mergers and the experience of the academic leader-

ship etc., which also influenced the specific effects of the UNIK.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

3.2

INTERVIEWS

The evaluation has examined the effects of UNIK on three levels at host universities:



Firstly, stakeholders from the university management, who were involved in the UNIK-

process. The university management has been interviewed in order to gain insight into

the broader strategic, organizational, and institutional implications of UNIK for the uni-

versity.

Secondly, key actors from the research environment, including the academic leader as

well as key researchers from the four UNIKs, were interviewed in order to get perspec-

tives on the effects more closely linked to the research environments.

Thirdly, actors with responsibility for knowledge exchange, e.g. business collaboration

and research communication.



Almost all interviews were conducted as qualitative group interviews. The purpose was to create

a setting in which the memories and perspectives of each interviewee would be mutually rein-

forcing and facilitate a more dynamic and qualified conversation. The following interviews were

carried out:



Three group interviews in total with university management representatives at each

host university. One university wished to conduct the interview as an individual inter-

view.

Six group interviews were conducted with key actors of the four UNIKs. Two group in-

terviews were conducted for each of the two most complex and interdisciplinary UNIKs

(Food, Fitness and Pharma at the University of Copenhagen and MindLab at the Univer-

sity of Aarhus).

An interview with one representative from the University of Copenhagen responsible

for knowledge exchange, research communication etc. At the other universities, the

necessary information about this aspect was extracted at the other levels.

An interview with a representative from the international expert panel.



Finally, a number of interviews were conducted with the universities that did not receive a grant.

The purpose of these interviews is to illuminate whether the application process made a differ-

ence at these universities.

In the case of the latter, the evaluation has drawn on individual interviews with researchers who

were directly involved in the application process, as well as one key actor from the university

management (or research support function at the larger universities).

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

3.3

ASSESSING THE EFFECTS

The extent to which an effect and its underlying cause is emphasised amongst several stakehold-

ers substantiates the likelihood of it.

The figure below is a schematic illustration of UNIK’s cause-effect-chains. On the left side, the

specific attributes of the UNIK scheme as well as the application process, serves as the causes,

while the effects shown on the right side manifest themselves on three levels:



Effects on the institution as such, e.g. strengthening the managerial functions of the

university, driving organizational changes, etc.

Effects on research, e.g. increasing excellence, international collaboration, attraction of

external funds, interdisciplinarity etc.

Derived effects, e.g. education, embedment, societal impact, outreach, communication

of research results, business collaboration, commercialization etc.

The effects of the application process are covered in a separate chapter (chapter 8).

An apparent effect can on the one hand also be (partly) due to other factors than mentioned

above. On the other hand, effects may at some universities be limited due to specific contextual

factors that constitute barriers to harvesting these effects. This is illustrated as “intervening”

factors in the figure.

Figure 3.1 Cause-effect chains

Intervening/

contextual

factors

Institutional

effects

UNIK characteristics

•

Large research grant

Few formal applica-

tion criteria

Co-financing is not a

requirement

Five-year horizon

Competitive

application process

Focus on

interdisciplinarity

Talent focus/

excellence

University manage-

ment is applicant.

Associated expert pa-

nel

Application

process

Effects on

research

Derived

effects

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

To establish whether an effect is due to UNIK and/or can be generalized (e.g. is valid regardless

of time and type of institution), we distinguish between three categories of effects:

1. Effects that are generic for all host universities and UNIKs and with certainty can be

attributed to the UNIK-funding instrument.

2. Effects that are probably associated with the UNIK-scheme, but where the isolated sig-

nificance of UNIK and the generalizability of the effects is uncertain.

3. Effects that are specific for an individual university and only to a limited extent can be

generalised.

To begin with, an effect belongs to the first category if it is identified by the majority of stake-

holders (across the UNIKs) and if the actors point to the same UNIK-related causes.

If the latter is not the case, both reliability and generalization of the findings appear more un-

certain. It enhance the likelihood that factors unrelated to UNIK also play a role, and that the

perceptions of the interviewees are of a more subjective nature.

Moreover, effects detected at only one university may be linked to institution-specific conditions

(e.g. the university already embarked on a strategy, which UNIK was compatible with). In such

cases, the effects are observable, but the basis for generalization is limited.

If, for example, increased research quality is highlighted as an effect by all the universities – and

attributed to the same combination of UNIK-specific causes (e.g. interdisciplinarity and embed-

ment in the university management) the effect is most probably linked to UNIK.

Correspondingly, the effect and its cause will appear weaker if universities emphasize different

underlying factors, or where only a single university mentions an effect. Figure 3.2 illustrates the

three categories of effect assessments.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Figure 3.2 Cause-effect assessment

Effect A is mentioned by all (or almost all) uni-

versities/UNIKs and is ascribed to factors dis-

tinctively related to UNIK.

Effect is most likely due to

UNIK and can be

generalised.

Effect B is mentioned by all (or almost all)

universities/UNIKs but is ascribed to different

UNIK-factors and/or in combination with

(other factors.

Effect is with some proba-

bility associated with

UNIK, but there is uncer-

tainty about the isolated

effects of UNIK and gener-

alisation of the effects.

Effect C is only mentioned by

one university/UNIK

Effect is specific for the in-

dividual UNIK/university

and cannot be general-

ised.

The colour code (green, yellow, red) will be used in assessing the effects. The tables in the chap-

ters summarize the observations from the qualitative analysis. A green dot denotes an effect

that, with high likelihood, can be attributed directly to UNIK.

A yellow dot points out that the effect most likely can be attributed to UNIK. However, the gen-

eralization of the effect is less certain, for example due to specific institutional contextual fac-

tors. Finally, a red dot denotes effects that can be attributable to UNIK, but is heavily influenced

by institution-specific factors.

In addition, the effects will be accompanied by an assessment of whether the effects could have

been achieved through other forms of (excellent) research funding instruments. The scale fea-

tures four levels:

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Table 3.1. UNIKs effects compared to other forms of research funding instruments

Level

Highly unique

Description

The effect is distinctive for UNIK as a funding instru-

ment

UNIK was effective, but the effect could partially

have been achieved through other funding instru-

ments, e.g. centres of excellence.

UNIK did create the effect, but it may have been par-

tially or entirely achieved through many other fund-

ing instruments.

The effect could have been achieved well through

other forms of research funding instruments.

Partially unique

Modestly unique

Not unique

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 4

Effects of UNIK – the institutional level

4.1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter explores the effects of UNIK on the university level. From the outset, UNIK was an

instrument of research policy aimed at strengthening the institutional capacity of universities by

providing the grants to the university management, which subsequently administered the UNIK

grants.

The international expert panel concludes in its evaluation that UNIK has had a number of posi-

tive effects on the host institutions:

“UNIK has had a substantial organisational impact on the host institutions and contributed to

forming new synergies by encouraging the universities to prioritise their research agendas and

carry out their main priority.”

This evaluation generally draws the same overarching conclusion, but will go deeper into the

contextual factors which influenced the outcome of UNIK on the institutions.

This chapter initially illustrates the main results from the qualitative study – using the colour

code system described in chapter 3. It subsequently elaborates the effects, starting with the

institutional effects that are most distinctively related to UNIK. Furthermore, these effects will

be compared to other key modes of research funding. Afterwards, the evaluation will assess

effects, which are affected by other UNIK-factors or contextual factors.

4.2

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTS FROM UNIK

Table 4.1 provides an overview of the observations from the interview, which will be elaborated

below:

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Table 4.1 Institutional effects of UNIK

Identified positive effects

University management’s willing-

ness and ability to support large

strategic and interdisciplinary re-

search programmes.

Focusing research strategy.

University management’s strategic

steering capacity and experience in

relation to handling large grants.

Encouraged establishment of re-

search infrastructure.

Effects can be attributed to

UNIK and can be generalized

Effects unique for UNIK

●

Highly unique.

Highly unique

Partially unique

Modestly unique

Driving organisational change.

Modestly unique

Ex post allocation of institutional

core funding to research programs.

Not unique

Firstly, the green dots will be elaborated, including causes and which other forms of research

funding could lead to the same effects. Subsequently, the yellow dots will be elaborated.

4.2.1. “Green” effects

As the green dots in the table illustrate, almost all interviewed UNIK host universities pointed

out that UNIK contributed positively to the institution. Although the separate effects could have

been achieved through other means, UNIK seems to have been quite efficient in achieving the

combination of effects found through the interviews.

The positive, and distinctively UNIK-related, effects include:



An increase of the institutional coherence and dialogue between the university manage-

ment, faculties and departments.

An increase in the university management’s ability and willingness to drive large inter-

disciplinary research programmes.

An impetus for the institutions to focus their research strategy, by providing a financial

injection to strategic research areas.

UNIK was a large financial injection for the institutions, making it possible – in some areas – to

pursue

interdisciplinary research programs of strategic importance.

The UNIK host universities

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

generally note that this was something “new” at a time where the institutional reforms from

2003-2009 were still unfolding.

The initiative compelled the university managements to rise above the day-to-day administra-

tion of the institutions and act strategically and selectively based on the individual university’s

comparative research strengths.

The university managements benefitted from the instrumental flexibility of the UNIK-grants in

order to prioritise strategic research areas that could contribute to reducing cultural, academic

and organisational barriers between the merged institutions. It strengthened the university

management’s capabilities and visibility vis-à-vis the research environments. As described by

one interviewee: “UNIK made it possible for the university management to show that it was

ambitious and capable”. Consequently, the universities point out that UNIK helped implement

the

research strategy of the university

by boosting specific research programs to a level, where

they would carry importance for the institution at large.

These effects are in particular due to UNIKs distinctive combination of:



The university management’s role as the lead of the application and recipient of the

grant, allowing for the allocation of resources in accordance with the research priorities

of the university.

Scale, i.e. large grants, which forced the management to think ambitious and strategi-

cally about the university’s comparative strengths, also in view of attracting additional

external funding, e.g. for research infrastructure.

Scope, i.e. UNIK’s focus on interdisciplinarity, which initiated a process of identifying the

research flagships of the institutions and promoting synergies between them.

Flexibility, i.e. few ex-ante requirements regarding disbursement and allocation, which

allowed the institutions to channel resources from UNIK to the most promising, high-

potential research parts of the programmes. Furthermore, there were relatively few re-

quirements regarding reporting and documentation. Instead, the international expert

panel monitored the progress.



Compared to other forms of research funding

Furthermore, these combined distinctive characteristics, made UNIK different compared to

other instruments of research funding:



CoEs or ERC-grants are generally more narrow in terms of academic scope, focusing on

specific research environments and without the same level of involvement from all or-

ganisational layers of the institution.

Large private endowments are sometimes of such a magnitude, that they become a

strategic priority for the university management. However, they do usually not involve

the same level of intra-institutional collaboration.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Institutional core funding is generally disbursed more evenly across the institution, and

does generally not allow for the same level of strategic focus as UNIK. However, follow-

ing UNIK, some universities have allocated pools of basic funding to finance cross-disci-

plinary programmes.

4.2.2. “Yellow” effects

In addition, there are a number of institutional effects, which appear to be results of UNIK, but

where generalization, or the isolated influence of UNIK, is less evident. These effects are marked

by a yellow dot and include:



Research infrastructure.

E.g. through a number of “core facilities” at the universities

with Food Fitness and Pharma at the University of Copenhagen establishing a Biobank,

and MindLab procuring scanners for brain research.

However, it is normal that large external grants prompt the construction of research

infrastructure. The novel feature of UNIK was that the infrastructure was to be used in

a cross-disciplinary setting. The Ministry of Higher Education and Science has earlier dis-

bursed significant grants for financing research infrastructure. Likewise, private en-

dowments occasionally co-finance research infrastructure.



Organisational change.

Especially, the University of Copenhagen experienced that the

UNIKs contributed positively to the merger process. This effect was not strongly empha-

sised at the two other host universities. During the period, the University of Aarhus un-

derwent a number of wide-reaching organisational changes, in which UNIK’s role was

relatively limited.

Allocation of core funding.

As shown in chapter 3, all universities allocated internal

funding to the UNIKs, but only one university (Copenhagen) has subsequently allocated

substantial basic funding, among other things, to secure the embedment of the well-

functioning organisational elements of UNIK

. The interviewees at the University of

Copenhagen, however, point out that this would most likely not have happened with-

out the previous “icebreaker” constituted by UNIK.

At the other universities, UNIK did not lead to a significant re-allocation of institutional

core funding.



The University of Copenhagen has allocated 400m DKK (approx. 53m Euros) internally to 18 interdisci-

plinary platforms. The initiative is known as the 2016-pool.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

4.3

FINAL REMARKS

Despite this general picture of the institutional effects, the UNIK-hosting universities’ judgement

of the institutional effects did vary. This variation indicates that it is crucial to examine the insti-

tutional context in which UNIK took place. The analysis shows that the variation especially de-

pends on:



The views of the individuals within the university management as well as the academic

and administrative coordinators.

UNIK’s integration with concurrent organisational changes, e.g. institutional mergers or

changes in the university management structure.

The governance structure built around the individual UNIK.

Firstly, it is crucial not to ignore the importance of individuals – and how their professional mo-

tivation as well as leadership and organisational skills affected the institutional outcome of UNIK.

This is the case for the university management level, as well as the academic leaders and coor-

dinators. The assessment is that all UNIKs had very skilled and highly engaged academic leaders

and coordinators, while the analysis indicates that the commitment of the university manage-

ment level differed.

The engagement from the university management is especially important in relation to the in-

stitutional embedment of the successful elements of the UNIK. That is, the long-term sustaina-

bility of, e.g. the networks, infrastructure and cross-disciplinary collaborative platforms, follow-

ing the expiry of the UNIK. Where the UNIK had strong anchoring and attention at the manage-

ment level – e.g. among the deans – the prospects of long-term embedment was more salient.

Secondly, concerning the organisational context the universities differed, which influenced the

perception of the UNIK’s coherence with the rest of the institution. At the Universities of Copen-

hagen and Aarhus, the contexts of the ongoing mergers were quite important. The way that the

university managements instrumentally chose to use UNIK in light of the mergers played a sig-

nificant role for the success of the UNIKs. Whereas the University of Copenhagen actively used

UNIK as one out of many steps to promote collaboration across the merged institutions, this

strategic-instrumental use of UNIK was less evident at the other universities, while for different

reasons.

Thirdly, the governance model supporting the individual UNIK – i.e. who had the responsibility

at the various institutional levels, what was the chain of command, how would the grant be

disbursed and who would be in charge etc. – similarly played an important role. As the universi-

ties were free to construct their own governance structures, the UNIKs differed substantially.

At one university, the governance model faced a number of challenges. The chain of command

meant that the faculties and departments, which normally plays a key role in financing e.g. re-

search infrastructure etc., was bypassed. According to the interviews, this led to much confusion

about the anchoring of responsibility and affected both the interdisciplinary collaboration and

the institutional embeddedness of activities negatively.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Generally, the institutional embeddedness of the UNIKs was most successful in the cases where

the governance model delegated as much of the day-to-day decision power and financial auton-

omy to the academic leader of the UNIK; and combined with a strong visibility from the univer-

sity management and faculty leadership, e.g. through conferences, meetings with the research-

ers etc.

In sum, it is safe to say that UNIK was a research-financing instrument that entailed a combina-

tion of distinctive institutional effects for the host institutions, which no other existing research-

financing instrument can generate in totality. Namely, the institutions’ motivation and capacity

to establish high-risk, novel interdisciplinary research platforms, serving as strategic flagships

for the institutions.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 5

Effects of UNIK on research environments

5.1

INTRODUCTION

In addition to the effects at the institutional level, we have also evaluated UNIK’s distinctive

effects on the research environments.

The international expert panel did also evaluate UNIK’s effects on research outcome and quality

(see chapter 2). The final evaluation of the panel concluded that:

“In general, the four UNIK initiatives (…) have excelled in both quantity and quality in a wide

range of parameters such as novel approaches, high quality research, internationalisation and

promotion of cross-disciplinarity”.

Specifically, the panel concluded that UNIK resulted in the following positive effects on research:



UNIK has fostered sustainable and excellent cross-disciplinary research undertakings.

UNIK has boosted the growth layer of young researchers within the cross-disciplinary

research areas of the UNIKs. Many young talented scientists are continuing their carrier

in research positions at the involved universities or at other Danish or international re-

search institutions.

UNIK has laid the ground for professionalization and advancement of the research ad-

ministrations at the host universities, leading the initiatives to be optimal platforms for

strategic planning and attraction of third party funding.



This chapter further explores the effects of UNIK on research output. Like in chapter 4, it starts

by assessing the distinctive effects and causes of UNIK and subsequently relates these effects to

other forms of research funding. Finally, it explores effects, which are influenced by other UNIK

factors.

5.2

EFFECTS OF UNIK ON RESEARCH

This evaluation generally confirmed the findings of the international expert panel. The table (5.1)

below sums up – based on the interviews – the research-related effects of UNIK and our conclu-

sions regarding UNIK’s added value vis-à-vis other instruments.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Tabel 5.1 Research-related effects of UNIK

Effects

Effects can be attributed to

UNIK and can be generalized

Effects unique for UNIK

Advancing experimental interdisci-

plinary research

Improved interdisciplinary research

collaboration

Fostering a new generation of re-

searchers oriented towards inter-

disciplinarity.

Creating international research

flagships and increasing interna-

tional collaboration

●



●

Highly unique

Partially unique

Modestly unique

Strengthening academic leadership

Modestly unique

Focusing the research profile of de-

partments and faculties.

Modestly unique

Strengthening research excellence

Not unique

Attracting additional external re-

search funding

Not unique

Firstly, the effects denoted by green dots will be elaborated including causes and additionally

vis-à-vis other forms of research funding. Secondly, the effects denoted by the yellow dots will

be elaborated.

5.2.1. “Green” effects

The most distinctive effects on research due to UNIK, shown in the above table with green dots,

relates to the instrument’s ability to foster experimental, cross-disciplinary science, thereby re-

ducing cultural, organisational and academic barriers among faculties and researchers. Almost

all universities, researchers and the representative from the expert panel are unequivocal in

considering these the foremost effects of UNIK. To elaborate, UNIK:



Fostered interdisciplinary research collaboration and networks

both within faculties

(e.g. physics and biology) as well as between faculties (e.g. health sciences and human-

ities) that did not exist before.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Fostered cross-disciplinary research in new areas

not covered by traditional academic

disciplines, thus making it possible to address joint research challenges focused on grand

societal challenges.

Fostered young researchers, both at the PhD-level and postdocs,

who became accus-

tomed and motivated to work in an interdisciplinary setting. Under normal circum-

stances, this can be challenging for young researchers due to the emphasis on “deep”

academic excellence.



UNIK is described by the majority of researchers as a flexible financing instrument that allows

researchers to pursue “real”

cross-disciplinarity.

It is a financing instrument that is well-suited

to establish ground-breaking, cross-disciplinary research areas, e.g. aimed at addressing societal

challenges (climate, energy, obesity etc.). UNIK made it possible for the universities to prioritize

collaboration between excellent research environments, which may not have taken place oth-

erwise, due to institutional priorities, lack of resources and time, researchers’ career paths, and

various cultural constraints.

One interviewee describes this form of research as having a radical transformative potential for

tomorrow’s industry, innovation and society, whereas most other funding sources are described

as having an “incrementally” focused outlook.

However, transcending academic borders and utilizing the synergies in different academic in-

sights and methods is in any case challenging. It requires researchers from various disciplines to

engage the complexity of different academic traditions, concepts and perspectives. Thus, the

transaction costs of venturing into cross-disciplinary research are often higher than focusing on

excellence within an established, narrow academic discipline.

In addition, cutting-edge, cross-disciplinary research does not necessarily benefit younger re-

searchers in their academic careers vis-à-vis focusing their research on classical excellence (see

below). The researchers point out that interdisciplinarity often risks becoming “half-hearted”

within other forms of financing schemes. Thus, cross-disciplinary collaboration often appears

more of a “formal” requirement than an aim that actually contributes to the advancement of

science.

Within UNIK, the interviewees emphasised how this constraint was significantly reduced. The

researchers actively sought to bridge the academic boundaries to foster novel ground-breaking

research. One such case was Synthetic Biology at the University of Copenhagen, which was an

entirely new academic discipline at the university (and with few “peers” globally). It merged

insights from natural sciences as well as social sciences and the humanities. MindLab brought

together researchers from all faculties.

In that regard, the interviewees especially point to the fact that UNIK also made it possible for

PhD-students as well as postdocs to work in an interdisciplinary setting, thus enhancing their

propensity to work with other academic disciplines around common challenges.

In addition, UNIK also carried distinctive effects linked to:



International collaboration with excellent cross-disciplinary research environments

abroad.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Strengthening academic leadership by equipping the academic leaders and administra-

tive coordinators with the skills to organise and steer large, complex research platforms

across academic disciplines.

However, some universities point out that excellence – rather than novel interdisciplinarity –

was emphasised in the call and in the review process. The interviewees pointed out that this

made it more difficult for the “experimental”, truly novel research areas to stand a chance in the

competition.

Most universities and researchers point out that UNIK was particularly efficient in

fostering in-

ternationally visible research flagships,

which would be viewed as potential partners by excel-

lent peer environments outside Denmark. Thus, all the UNIKs established international collabo-

rations, e.g. CASE at DTU with Berkley University in California. Other examples of “international”

effects were joint summer schools, and the creation of strong platforms from which Denmark’s

research environments can influence the topics and calls of Horizon 2020.

UNIKs isolated effects on

academic leadership

were clearly present, although the universities

differed slightly when assessing its magnitude. UNIKs prompted the institutions to select very

skilled academic leaders and administrative coordinators who played an important role in mak-

ing UNIK a success. Conversely, the scale of UNIK and the degree of interdisciplinarity was some-

thing unusual for most of the academic leaders and/or the administrative coordinators. This

meant that UNIK did entail a distinctive “learning process” for the academic leaders.

The interviewees all emphasise how this type of research funding is particularly efficient in ad-

vancing ground-breaking, cross-disciplinary research vis-à-vis other research funding mecha-

nisms. The main characteristics of UNIK leading to these positive effects can be summarized as

follows:



Scale (large grant), which entails financial freedom to initiate large research programs

requiring substantial investments in e.g. staffing and research infrastructure.

Degrees of freedom (combined with scale) constituting a “playground” for young re-

searchers, creating financial stability for a five-years time-horizon and easing require-

ments on young researchers regarding fundraising etc.

Focus on “real” cross-disciplinarity, making it desirable and feasible to explore novel,

innovative science combining insights and methods from several academic traditions.

Competition-based application process that compelled the universities to bring together

the most excellent research environments.

The timeframe of five years creating a stable period and making it possible to plan in a

medium-to-long-term perspective. However, most interviewees emphasise a wish for a

longer time-horizon.

The associated expert panel, which gave valuable support and guidance through the en-

tire implementation of the UNIKs.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Compared to other forms of research funding

The interviewees were furthermore asked to compare UNIKs research-related effects to other

forms of research funding:



In principle, the same effects could have been achieved through ample institutional

core funding, but in practice, core funding is largely bound to technical-administrative

costs and salaries, making it difficult to prioritise initiatives of UNIKs magnitude.

Most other forms of existing Danish research funding instruments are not conducive to

the same level of experimental novelty. Centres of Excellence, for example, are much

more focused on excellence than interdisciplinarity. Research grants from Innovation

Fund Denmark do to some extent award interdisciplinarity. However, they are charac-

terized by far more specific requirements on participation, topic etc. and more focused

on clear deliverables.

ERC-grants do also emphasise interdisciplinarity, but the grants do not have the same

scale as UNIK, and are usually less flexible in nature, carrying many requirements re-

garding documentation, milestones and deliverables.

Research funding instruments providing primary priority to excellence, such as the

DNRF’s Centres of Excellence, can be even more efficient in achieving excellence, but

within a narrow field and without the same level of experimental interdisciplinarity as

UNIK.



5.2.1. “Yellow” effects

Finally, there are a number of research related effects, which appear to have been a result of

UNIK, but where generalization or the isolated influence of UNIK is less evident. These effects

are marked by a yellow dot in table 5.1 and include:



Strengthening research excellence.

Focusing the research profile of departments and faculties.

Attracting additional external research funding.

With respect to research excellence, all universities/researchers participating in a UNIK

acknowledge that the grant lead to significant high-impact, excellent research. However, the

reason why the effect is denoted with a yellow light follows from the following factors:



The UNIKs were generally built on top of research environments that were already ex-

cellent, e.g. former Centres of Excellence etc. The universities and researchers argue

that UNIK’s distinctive additional effect on excellence is debatable. On one hand, the

size of the grant – and its time frame – created some fundamental underpinnings for

advancing excellent research. On the other hand, the interviewees tend to emphasise

UNIK’s impact on cross-disciplinary research, rather than classical academic excellence.

Moreover, research excellence and novel cross-disciplinarity are not always easily com-

patible goals, as review criteria for excellent research are not always specified in detail



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

for novel, innovative research. Some interviewees pointed out that the incentive to do

cross-disciplinary research is often low for young researchers as their careers usually

depends on bibliometric impact within a well-established academic field.



Generally, many existing funding streams emphasise excellence as their main distribu-

tion criterion. This is, for example, the case with CoE from the Danish National Research

Foundation as well as ERC’s various grants.

The interviewees also differ in terms of the extent UNIK was instrumental in focusing the re-

search profile of departments and faculties. In some UNIKs, the departments played a key role

in organising the UNIK. However, the UNIKs also worked across the framework of the established

departments, leading to varying involvement from the departments.

Concerning attraction of external funding, the evaluation of the international panel states that

the four UNIK in total attracted approximately DKK 1100 m (Euro 150 m) from national and in-

ternational research funding sources.

However, the question is whether this would have happened without UNIK. To this point, the

interviewees have differing perspectives. On one hand, it is normal that large flagship initiatives

such as UNIK attract external funding. On the other hand, one interviewee points out that the

research environments might actually have attracted a larger total volume of external funding

had the research groups applied individually.

5.3

FINAL REMARKS

The research-related effects of the individual UNIKs and their continued embedment played out

in very different ways. A number of contextual factors can account for this. Key factors include:



The extent to which UNIK was grounded in research environments already characterised

by excellence or interdisciplinarity. Most UNIKs were based on research environments

that had already received funding from the Danish National Research Foundation or

ERC.

Furthermore, the University of Copenhagen had already established a number of inter-

disciplinary platforms (theme-packages), which served as an organisational foundation

for the final two UNIK grants.

The institutional governance-structures of the UNIKs. This especially relates to the or-

ganisational relation between the university management, faculties and academic lead-

ership as well as the administrative coordinators. As elaborated above, the organisa-

tional embedment of the UNIK and the involvement from the university leadership dif-

fered, which could cause confusion and a lack of motivation at the level of researchers.



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 6

Derived effects from UNIK and embedment

6.1

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation has examined derived effects from UNIK. Derived effects mean possible effects

coming out of the research activities of UNIK, while they are not directly part of the core re-

search-activities of the UNIKs.

The interviewees generally did not put much emphasis on derived effects. This may be attributed

to the fact that the UNIKs were only recently finalized, why we have probably not seen the ef-

fects manifest themselves fully yet.

This chapter will elaborate on the derived effects, their causes and subsequently relate them to

other forms of research funding. Furthermore, the chapter focuses on the embedment of UNIK-

activities.

6.2

DERIVED EFFECTS OF UNIK

Table 6.1 provides an overview of the conclusions from the interviews when it comes to derived

effects.

Table 6.1 Derived effects from UNIK

Effects

New educational programs or

courses at Bachelor’s or Master’s

or PhD level.

Enhanced external communication

on research.

Effects can be attributed to

UNIK and can be generalized

Effects unique for UNIK

●



●

Modestly unique

Increased business collaboration

Not unique

Increased commercialization of re-

search results (IPR)

Not unique

As shown in the table, the derived effects include:



New educational programs or courses.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



Increased business collaboration.

Enhanced external communication on research.

Increased commercialization of research results.

Based on our interviews, it is possible to conclude that all universities have experienced these

effects, but they do not seem to be strongly distinctive for the UNIK-scheme. According to the

university managements and the researchers, other large research funding schemes usually

carry these types of effects also.

All UNIKs had research activities that were passed on through various educational elements for

use - both at PhD-level and at other levels. Furthermore, the UNIKs contributed to new angles

of research communication. The table below illustrates some examples.

Table 6.2 Examples of effects on education and research communication



Technical University of Denmark



University of Aarhus



No new courses, but research results from CASE incor-

porated in existing courses.

Educational book and video for children/public school

New interdisciplinary PhDs

Interdisciplinary courses at B.Sc. and M.Sc.-level, e.g.

Public Health.

Summer school: “Obesity in a cross-disciplinary per-

spective”

Installation at the ESOF-conference on the social re-

sponsibility of research.

Conference on the social responsibility of research

Educational videos.

New BA programme in cognition science

University of Copenhagen (Synbio

and FFP)

The table shows that UNIK does carry various effects in terms of education, though the content

vary from new educational programs to incorporating elements of research into existing educa-

tional programs. It is not unusual that large research programmes have derived effects on edu-

cation and research communication.

However, the specific content of the UNIK-effects and research communication is of course char-

acterised by new interdisciplinary knowledge, which is – as mentioned above – something

unique for UNIK.

Business collaboration and commercialization was generally not particularly emphasised, alt-

hough all the UNIKs had business-related research activities as well as filed patents. However,

the managements and researchers primarily saw UNIK as a basic science initiative, where the

broader effects on businesses would not be evident in the short term.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

With regards to business collaboration, a number of interviewees pointed to the fact that the

UNIKs addressed societal challenges, and while the tangible effects on business might be limited

at this point, the long-term value creation could prove significant in terms of new industries and

business opportunities in the future. Therefore, it is important not to perceive UNIK in the same

manner as for example grants from Innovation Fund Denmark, which have a shorter timeframe

and usually a more tangible outcome.

6.3

EMBEDMENT OF THE UNIKS

Embedment has been a pressing question during the entire existence of the UNIKs. The issue

arises from the typical challenge of project funding: How to secure continuation of (the well-

functioning) parts of an initiative after project funds dry out. The question becomes even more

relevant in light of the scale of UNIK.

The research activities demand substantial up-front investments in equipment, laboratories, re-

cruitment of staff etc. If activities are not carried on, the universities risk being left with idle

research infrastructure and excellent researchers without funding.

All UNIKs were required to compose a plan/an agreement before their expiry on how they would

embed the “successful” elements of the individual UNIK. Furthermore, the international expert

panel had to discuss the issue with the individual UNIKs as to identify the activities, which were

to be embedded. The conclusion in the evaluation is that:

“(…) looking into the future it is opaque whether all the initiatives will sustain as top research

environments without the funding from UNIK. This is a matter of great concern to the panel. It

judges it to be a shared responsibility of the researchers involved and the management at the

host universities to find a solution that will secure the successful outcome of the UNIKs in a long

term perspective.”

This evaluation shares the same assessment. The universities and researchers have all embed-

ded parts of the UNIKs in very different ways. For example by financing PhDs, employing re-

searchers in fixed positions, attracting external funding and/or creating intra-institutional, inter-

disciplinary grants. Others have sought to embed the basic interdisciplinary, collaborative struc-

ture as a framework for future programs.

Generally, however, embedment has posed a significant challenge for the host universities and

the results are diverse. Three elements have been of importance:



The governance-structure, which has already been discussed above. In terms of embed-

ment, this factor influenced the anchoring of responsibility after the expiry of the grant.

Hence, whether the university management specifically had focus on the continuation

of the relevant activities.

The academic leaders. Some leaders focused on embedding the concrete research ac-

tivities, i.e. by attracting fresh funding, whereas others sought to embed the interdisci-



UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

plinary organisational structure, which could then serve as the “framework” or a tem-

plate for new research activities. It appears as if the latter model has been more suc-

cessful in terms of embedment.



Finance, including the university managements’ own willingness to continue to fund the

activities in an interdisciplinary setting, or through external funding. Importantly, all uni-

versities stress that a five years period is too short to construct a sustainable interdisci-

plinary research environment of this magnitude. The interviewees voice a desire to ex-

tend the well-functioning parts of an UNIK for additional years after an evaluation and

additional funding.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Chapter 7

The application process

7.1

IMPACT OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS

The application process itself entailed significant organisational demands on the institutions and

university management. For many of the universities, composing the applications for UNIK was

a process that differed from most other research funding applications.

Overall, the application process was something unique compared to other forms of research

funding. It created an impetus for cross-disciplinary, cross-institutional dialogue and collabora-

tion to an extent, which was only somewhat present in other forms of research applications. The

sections below will elaborate on the results from our analysis, starting with the most distinctive

characteristics of the application process, which subsequently will be compared to other forms

of research funding. Hereafter, other characteristics will be examined.

The table below sums up observations from the qualitative analysis.

Table 7.1 Characteristics of the application process

Effects

Characteristics can be at-

tributed to UNIK and can be

generalized

Characteristics unique for

UNIK

Strengthened dialogue between

academic fields

Promoting interdisciplinary collab-

oration between faculties and de-

partments.

Strengthened university manage-

ment’s capacity to support large

funding applications.

Furthered focus and implementa-

tion of the university’s research

strategy

Strengthened university manage-

ment’s willingness and ability to

support large strategic and inter-

disciplinary research programmes.

Created the basis for interdiscipli-

nary platforms at the non-UNIK

universities.

●

Highly unique

Partially unique

Modestly unique

Partially unique

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

As illustrated in the table, the application process had a distinctive influence on a few factors at

the universities (denoted with green dots). In particular, it fostered dialogue and collaboration

between academic fields.

Following points from the interviews summarize key experiences of the unique application pro-

cess of UNIK:



The potential prospects of achieving a UNIK grant resulted in a number of internal pro-

cesses and organisational arrangements devised to identify and select cross-disciplinary

research topics, which would be incorporated in the applications.

Generally, the application process was characterized by a combination of bottom-up

and top-down approaches. Researchers were encouraged to submit their ideas openly,

while the university leadership and faculties coordinated the process and selected the

eligible applications.

The application process fostered a close dialogue between university management, fac-

ulties and researchers. This vertical dialogue focused on identifying synergies between

the proposals, focusing the content of the final applications and facilitating interdiscipli-

nary collaboration.



The combination of these experiences can be attributed due to the following aspects of the

UNIK-scheme:



The size of the UNIK grant – and the fact that the university management was the lead

of the application – made it a strategic priority for the universities to pursue the com-

petition.

The call’s emphasis on excellence and interdisciplinarity compelled the university man-

agement and researchers to initiate cross-institutional dialogue.

The application process meant that only few applications would be eligible in the com-

petition. The relatively high transaction costs of composing an application automatically

ensured that only the most motivated researchers with the best ideas initiated work on

the application.



To a varying degree, all the UNIKs built upon existing research platforms. In particular, a number

of the research groups, which created the groundwork of the UNIKs, had hosted Centres of Ex-

cellence before UNIK. However, it also stands clear from the interviews that the application pro-

cess of UNIK was something special. Compared to other forms of applications for research fund-

ing, the respondents emphasize the following:



Although a number (or elements) of UNIK applications were partly grounded in previous

Centres-of-Excellences (Danish National Research Foundation), the applications for

UNIK were markedly more interdisciplinary than what is normally the case with respect

to applications for CoEs. The UNIKs involve a larger number of research areas, faculties

and departments and emphasize challenge-driven interdisciplinarity.

The application process also produced a number of characteristics, which are less straightfor-

ward to generalize. In table 7.1 the effects have been denoted by a yellow or red dot.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren



To some extent, UNIK strengthened some universities’ capacity to support large funding

applications. However, many non-UNIK universities point out that the UNIK-process (in

itself) did not have any distinctive implications. Furthermore, other universities already

had a strong administrative apparatus concerning research-funding applications.

The application process’ impact on focus and implementation of the university’s re-

search strategy was most relevant for the universities, which eventually received a UNIK.

However, one non-UNIK university subsequently incorporated the research topic of the

application in its research strategy.

Furthermore, the impact of the university management’s willingness and ability to sup-

port large strategic and interdisciplinary research programs mostly had relevance for

the UNIK-universities, whereas some non-UNIK universities in the short-term experi-

enced the opposite: that the rejection reduced the motivation for participating in similar

activities.

UNIK did to a limited extent inspire a few non-UNIK universities to launch similar initia-

tives internally. However, it is possible that this would have happened despite UNIK, as

these universities were already apt at working cross-disciplinary.



The interviews also point to a number of challenges regarding the application process:



The call emphasised excellence as well as novel interdisciplinarity. The nature of exper-

imental, novel, interdisciplinary research cannot always live up to classical excellence

criteria, as the research fields have not yet been properly established. Some interview-

ees point out that the review process and judgement, eventually was based more on

classical criteria of excellence (impact in journals) rather than on the originality and

cross-disciplinarity of produced scientific research.

Finally, some non-UNIK universities problematize what they view as a structural bias in

the UNIK-scheme. The size of the grants, and its strong emphasis on interdisciplinarity

and excellence made it – according to the critics – from the outset difficult for smaller,

less academically, diverse, and less research-heavy universities to win a UNIK.



7.2

DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPICAL APPLICATION PROCESS

The majority of universities describe the UNIK application process as a combination of bottom-

up and top-down approaches.

Following the call from the ministry, the generic approach resulted in a process, where the uni-

versity management invited researchers to submit short descriptions (“one-pagers”) of research

topics. This process was generally open for all researchers/research groups at the universities,

although the university management to some extent “nudged” research groups that from the

outset were believed to carry a special potential.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Subsequently, the university management (both at the institutional level and at the faculty level)

initiated a screening procedure where they identified and selected the topics carrying the big-

gest potential for receiving a UNIK in accordance with the call’s emphasis on interdisciplinarity,

excellence and internationalisation. In that way, they narrowed down the possible competitors.

Generally, the universities describe this approach as novel. It forced the university managements

to be selective and strategic about the UNIK-applications in relation to the comparative research

strengths of the institutions.

Furthermore, the university management examined potential synergies between the individual

descriptions as well as the interplay between the research topics and the strategic context of

the university. This was especially the case for the universities significantly affected by the uni-

versity mergers, e.g. the University of Copenhagen and the University of Aarhus. At these insti-

tutions, researchers were “forced” to collaborate across former institutional boundaries, in

cases where the potential for synergies existed. One researcher describes it as “an unprece-

dented strong management style”.

For research topics that carried a high potential, but needed additional adjustments and focus,

a dialogue with the researchers in question was carried out before initiating the composition of

the application itself.

However, there were also differences in the way individual universities handled the UNIK-appli-

cation process. In particular, the way that the universities organised the governance-structure

around the application process played an important role.

For example, at the University of Copenhagen the application process gained extra momentum

from the on-going mergers between the University of Copenhagen, the former Danish University

of Pharmaceutical Sciences and the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University. In relation to

the mergers, the university had already initiated 13 cross-disciplinary “theme-packages” to

strengthen coherence and dialogue between excellent research areas from the merged institu-

tions.

These packages came to serve as the organisational framework for the UNIK-process. Once the

call was announced, the university had already prepared an interdisciplinary organisational plat-

form and a governance structure. Subsequently, the university management could more easily

identify the cross-disciplinary research areas, which held the biggest potential.

It is also important to note, that a number of the applicants had previous experiences with Cen-

tres of Excellence and/or large private endowments, providing them with the organisational ex-

perience and skills regarding large research programmes.

Despite these contextual factors, most interviewees point out that the UNIK application process

was not business-as-usual when applying for large research grants. The process featured a much

more extensive cross-disciplinary dialogue than normally, compelling scientists from very differ-

ent academic fields to be accustomed to each other’s “language” and scientific paradigms –

eventually merging the fields in a collective application. For the participating researchers, the

process helped bridge academic fields around common research challenges.

UFU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 168: Spm. om ministeren vil fremsende relevante evalueringer af Globaliseringspuljen 2007-12, til Uddannelses- og forskningsministeren

Especially when looking at the non-UNIK universities, the long-term embedment of the applica-

tion varied, but most non-UNIK universities did try to carry on parts of the application, e.g. by

attracting external funds or by embedding the research topics in the university strategy. Table

7.2 provides an overview of the activities that followed from the application process at the non-

UNIK-universities.

Table 7.2 Non-UNIK universities: Activities embedded after the application process

Activities



University of Southern Denmark



University of Aalborg

Copenhagen Business School



Embedded in research strategy

Research attracted subsequent external fund-

ing.

Internal allocation of core funding.

Elements of applications were subsequently

continued in other research projects.

Establishment of new interdisciplinary platforms

Embedded in research strategy

Research attracted subsequent external funding

Internal allocation of core funding.

New educational program

Embedded in research strategy

Elements of applications subsequently attracted

external funding



University of Roskilde



IT University of Copenhagen



However, these universities are generally less unequivocal as to whether the UNIK-process

played a decisive role in embedding these activities. A few universities furthermore emphasise

how the rejection to some extent discouraged the researchers’, hence reduced motivation for

engaging in large interdisciplinarity programs in the short term.

One important issue in this regard is the fact that the call put much emphasis on cross-discipli-

nary research, while the review process to a great extent did focus on traditional research crite-

ria. At some universities, this mismatch was regarded as a disincentive to engage in cross-disci-

plinary research, especially within new research areas.