The University Evaluation 2009 Evaluation report

5. THE MERGERS

5.1 Introduction

The university merger processes consisted of integration of government research institutions (GRIs) into the university sector, which were a target directly embedded in the Globalisation Strategy; and mergers between universities, which were initiated by the government subsequent to the decision on the Globalisation Strategy. The integration of GRIs had as its main aims: to stimulate research synergies between until now institutionally separated sectors, to fertilise the university sector with practice oriented research leading to close contacts with societal, i e. private and public sector agencies, and to make additional research resources available for educational processes, leading to a strengthening of the link between higher education and research.

The mergers were voluntary as regards the universities; forced mergers would only have been possible through a change in the existing University Act - a change for which there was no majority in Parliament. As regards the GRIs the merging decision should preferably be supported by the boards of the GRIs. While the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation hinted at a preferred overall result of 6 universites, the actual result of the merger processes was a new university sector consisting of 8 universities, while also some of the government research institutions remained independent.

The mergers were overall expected to stimulate:

> more interdisciplinary cooperation in education;

> more flexible and relevant offerings of degree programmes for the Danish students;

> greater success for Danish universities in their applications for EU research funding;

> higher quality (in the sense of impact) of the Danish university research output;

> better cooperation between the universities and the private sector with respect to innovation;

> more effective knowledge relationship between the public research sector and the sector ministries.

In accordance with the Panel’s evaluation framework, the mergers may be seen as a means to create stronger universities, especially in research, and thereby give prerequisites for strengthening university profiles. Furthermore, the mergers between universities and GRIs are meant to support the universities in their response to the needs of society, including creating better conditions for the universities contributing to economically relevant innovations in the private sector. The mergers were also expected to strengthen education, by bringing research staff from the GRI sector into the universities. In all cases, the critical mass of knowledge production were supposed to be improved.

The effects of the mergers are still too early to be clearly identified, as the merger decisions have taken place only three years ago. Obviously, the Panel has observed that the implementation phase is still going on and in some cases needs to be accelerated in order to realise the intended contributions to stronger profiles. Nonetheless, the Panel has got the clear impression that at most universities the merger processes have acted in certain ways as change drivers. This concerns in the first place changes at those universities that have been involved in mergers. Even though at these institutions it was in general indicated by the academic staff that the mergers have had limited influence and had no direct impact on their research activities as such, many staff members still felt that the mergers had either strengthened premerger research collaborations, created new intra-institutional cooperation structures or other structural innovations, or had led to new intra-university research funding initiatives.

5.2 Research

Concerning the area of research the mergers had a specific twofold goal, i e. creating the conditions under which firstly the impact of the Danish university research output would be further strengthened, and secondly the Danish universities would be more successful in their applications for EU research funding. Consequently, in this section the focus is on the extent to which these two goals have been realised.

5.2.1 International impact of Danish university research

Strong starting position

It is difficult to relate the effects on the international impact of research to the mergers. In addition to the general methodological problem resulting from the recent date of the implementation of the mergers, there is much overall confusion about the actual nature of the goals set by the Danish political system. “Impact of university research” is not operationalised clearly, implying that the Panel is not sure what is expected of the Danish universities. What is e g. meant by world class? Does it mean that one Danish university should be among the 10 best in the world, among the 20 best? Or should all Danish universities become world leaders in at least one disciplinary area? What are the indicators to be used? The use of global university rankings is, for example, connected with severe problems, as they are heavily criticised for methodological inconsistencies. In addition, the starting point for the evaluation is not a university sector in crisis. The research performance of Danish universities was in 2007 in many respects good to excellent, and there are no indications that it is deteriorating.

Data on research performance show that Denmark is among the most productive countries in the world. When it comes to the number of scientific articles per inhabitant (see table 1) only Switzerland and Sweden are performing better than Denmark, and the productivity of Switzerland is clearly influenced by the high output of CERN staff. Also the growth of the productivity of the Danish universities is satisfying, and concerning the research impact Denmark is among the best performing countries in the world, with Switzerland being the only country performing better than Denmark (table 2).

These data concern the research productivity and impact of Denmark as a country. Discipline-specific data¹ concerning the publication profile of Danish researchers and the number of citations per article show a diverse picture with Danish research belonging to the world frontier in certain fields and performing less than average in others. Nonetheless, the overall productivity and impact of Danish research is impressive.

Table 1: Scientific publication in 2006/08 in selected countries
country	Number of articles 2006	% of World production		Nr of articles per 1000 inhabitants	average annual change in nr of articles 02-06 (06/08) in %
		2006	2008
USA	293 254	25,8	24,3	0,99	3,8
UK	77 056	6,8	6,5	1,28	3,4
Germany	72 236	6,4	6,1	0,88	3,0
Japan	71 143	6,3	5,8	0,56	0,8
China	69 664	6,1	7,3	0,05	19,9
France	51 591	4,5	4,4	0,83	3,1
Canada	44 119	3,9	3,7	1,37	7,2
Italy	39 522	3,5	3,5	0,68	5,4
Spain	30 785	2,7	2,8	0,71	7,1
Australia	27 515	2,4	2,4	1,35	6,3
India	25 672	2,3	2,4	0,02	10,1
Netherlands	23 417	2,1	2,0	1,44	5,4
Switzerland	16 947	1,5	1,5	2,26	6,2
Sweden	16 572	1,5	1,4	1,84	2,7 (2,1)
Denmark	8 866	0,8	0,8	1,64	4,1 (4,6)
Austria	8 357	0,7	0,7	1,02	3,6
Finalnd	8 321	0,7	0,7	1,59	3,4 (3,9)
Norway	6 751	0,6	0,6	1,46	7,9 (9,2)
Source: National Science Indicators /Thomson Scientific/NIFU STEP

Table 2: Relative citation index for selected countries, total numbers for five-year period 2002-2006 (world average = 100)
Country	Index	Country	Index
Switzerland	145	France	110
USA	135	Australia	108
Denmark	135	Italy	107
The Netherlands	132	Spain	101
UK	125	Japan	91
Sweden	123	China	73
Belgium	122	Brazil	67
Finland	120	India	60
Germany	119
Norway	118	World average	100
Austria	117	OECD average	109
Canada	116	EU average	106
Note: Based on publications in the period 2002-2006 and citations of these publications in the same period. index for each country is weighed on the basis of the country’s relative field distribution of articles.
Source: National Science Indicators/Thomson Scientific/NIFU STEP

Concerning the rankings of Danish universities a distinction has to be made between academic and commercial rankings. The academic rankings attempt to use academic indicators in a consistent way. Here one can in general see a rather stable list of universities (or university programmes) from year to year, but a general criticism towards these rankings concerns their methodology, e g. the weight of specific indicators. An example of an academic ranking is the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranking of the top 500 research universities in the world. Commercial rankings are in general published by magazines and have a tendency to change the criteria regularly, leading to large shifts up and down the list of the selected universities. An example of this kind of ranking is the Times Higher Education ranking. Several commercial rankings of universities are national only.

Here, we refer to the academic rankings. In general the four largest Danish universities (KU, AU, DTU and SDU) are ranked among the best research universities in the world when it comes to institutional rankings, such as the Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking. We find it a striking feature that KU and AU are among the few universities that have improved their position considerably in the Shanghai ranking over the last years, which could be a result of the mergers. According to the disciplinary ranking produced by the German Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE)², which identifies the very best European graduate programmes in a number of fields³, KU belongs in five of the seven included disciplines to the very best universities in Europe, while AU belongs in one discipline to the Europe scientific top. The other Danish universities are not included in the main academic rankings. The diversity in research performance per discipline and university is confirmed by data presented in the latest Forskningsbarometer 2009.

Furthermore, Danish universities are performing well to very well compared to other OECD countries when it comes to attracting international research funds from other sources than the EU. This goes for funding from other research councils, such as the NIH and NSF in the USA, as for funding from foundations and other non-profit organisations ⁴.

Policy issue: University profiles emerging?

The Panel finds that, by and large the Danish universities have explicit research strategies, but with different ambition levels showing clearly that not all universities aim at performing as world class research universities in all areas. This is one of the aspects that should be included in a further development of the system diversity in Danish higher education. One diversity aspect seems to be given, i e. the strict separation of the roles of universities and university colleges (professionshøjskoler), with the latter not being expected to do basic research or offer research-based master and PhD programmes. However, as indicated such a binary divide does not imply that all universities can be expected to have identical research missions and perform at the same level.

As we have implied above, the political intention to further improve the research impact of Danish universities has been driven neither by a crisis nor by perceived problems related to the current quantity and quality of the research performance of Danish universi-ties. The Danish universities’ research performance is in many respects impressive. Also the public financing of academic research has been increased quite strongly as part of the implementation of the Danish Globalisation Strategy. The government obviously intends to stick at least for the coming three years to its intentions to invest public funds at a level of around 1% of the Danish GDP in research, despite the financial crisis.

The report has noted above all an absence of clarity about the aimed at research targets of the Danish universities and the university reform processes. This calls for a more explicit debate on the role, profile and mission of each university which can be expected to be beneficial for the Danish university sector. The reported diversity in the research productivity and impact suggests that the development of a strategic institutional profile could be anchored, amongst other things, in the disciplines, fields and areas where the university in question is performing better than world average.

The mergers offered potentially another element in the further development of institutional profiles in the sense that they allowed for a concentration of research staff, facilities and resources in specific disciplines, fields and areas. However, given that there were several other factors influencing the final outcomes of the mergers, the resulting institutional profiles were not as distinct as might have been targeted at. Therefore, even though the mergers have contributed to the further development of university profiles, the Panel can identify two important policy issues, which are unclear to us, and which we feel need to be debated:

First: Have the reforms, and especially the merger processes, led to the development of the institutional research strategies, performance and innovations that were expected? In other words, what were the expected features of the strategic institutional profiles, and is the new Danish university landscape moving in that direction? Second: What kind of university system diversity is preferred? For example, should the system move into the direction of a ‘University of Denmark’ system, with agreed profiles and roles for each university? Or is a more open competition (nationally and internationally) preferable in which the universities’ profiles and roles are less the result of mutual agreements, and more of institutional decisions on investments, academic staff quality, and research and teaching facilities?

5.2.2 Attracting EU funding

Observations

One of the main expectations of the mergers was that Danish universities would become more successful in attaining EU research funding. In this the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2007 is an important benchmark for Danish universities, since the aim of the ERC is to create a ‘Champions League’ of European investigator-driven ‘frontier’ research. In order to get an indication of the success rate of Danish universities in applying for EU funding the Panel has focused on the results of the seventh Framework Programme (FP7), which also includes the ERC

FP7 started 1 January 2007 and will expire in 2013. It has a budget of over € 50 billion, and it is as such the largest publicly funded research programme ever established⁵.

A first examination of the results of Danish applicants in the first period (around 2 5 years) of FP7 shows that the overall level of Danish participation in FP7 is high for the Cooperation programme and the infrastructure part of the Capacities programme, and relatively low for the remainder of the Capacities programme and the entire People programme, especially when it comes to the coordination of Marie Curie Initial Training Networks. Nonetheless, overall the level of Danish participation in these three FP7 programmes implies that Danish researchers receive more funding from these three FP7 programmes than the level of the net return rate for Denmark. This implies that Denmark ‘receives more funding from FP7 than it invests’.

However, despite the high overall participation rate in the Cooperation programme and the research infrastructure part of the Capacities programme in FP7, the general picture is that Danish universities like to participate in projects but not to coordinate them. This can be illustrated by the following figures: while around 17 % of all projects in the FP7 Cooperation programme have one or more Danish partner, only around 1 % of all FP7 Cooperation projects is coordinated by a Danish university.

This raises some questions among the Panel. Given the high productivity and quality of Danish university research one might have expected a somewhat different balance between participation and coordination. In a number of areas Danish universities are at the global research forefront, and the merger-related aim to increase the success of Danish universities in EU research funding can be regarded as an expression of the connection made in the research policy arena between research quality and EU research funding⁶. This is based on the assumption that the competition for EU funding is tougher than for national competitive research funding, and the quality of Danish research might lead to the expectation that Danish universities would be more active in applying as FP7 funded project coordinators than is currently the case.

Why is it necessary to point to the different performance of Danish universities in FP7 project coordination compared to project participation? Is the high level of participation of Danish universities not satisfying enough? What would be the advantage of a higher number of projects coordinated by a Danish university? A possible answer to these questions is that a project coordinator has more influence on and control over the nature and focus of the research activities undertaken in an FP7 project. This is confirmed by a recent study from NIFU STEP that suggests that the level of satisfaction with project outcomes, effects and follow up action is significantly higher for project coordinators in the Cooperation programme than for project participants.

During the visits to the universities the Panel heard a number of explanations for the relative low number of FP7 projects and networks coordinated by Danish universities. The main explanations heard were first the overall Danish scepticism against the EU in general; second the ineffective or even lack of lobbying in Brussels for inclusion of research themes (especially in FP/ Cooperation) of relevance for Danish researchers and Denmark in general; third the reluctance among Danish researchers to invest in bureaucratic FP7 application procedures; fourth the administrative burden of coordinating an EU project; and fifth the relative abundance of research funding in Denmark.

The Panel did hear some worries or even complaints about the intra-university support structures for academic staff wanting to apply for EU funding. The evidence gathered during the visits is not convincing enough to come to a final conclusion in this. But overall the Panel would like to recommend the Danish universities to carefully review the effectiveness of their EU funding support structure. Nonetheless, the Panel did not get the impression that problems with the support structure was among the main reasons for the relative underperformance of Danish universities when it comes to coordinating EU projects.

The overall observation the Panel made is that despite the high level of participation of Danish researchers in projects funded by FP7, with respect to application for EU funding there is a gap between the political/ministerial expectations and the formal universities strategies on the one hand and the experiences, capacities, actions and perceptions of academic university staff on the other hand.

In this the Panel recommends the university leadership to assess the appropriateness of their research strategy when it comes to attracting EU funding. An active research strategy implies a proactive and not a reactive approach. As a consequence, it could be argued that part of the process of attracting EU funding should be a top down process through the identification of institutional top researchers, followed by stimulating and supporting them in their application for EU funding, instead of a bottom up process in which researchers are expected to ask their administration for support before action is undertaken.

ERC – the Ideas FP7 programme

The fourth FP7 programme, ‘Ideas’, is implemented by the ERC. The objective of the specific programme ‘Ideas’ is to reinforce excellence, dynamism and creativity in European research and improve the attractiveness of Europe for the best researchers from both European and third countries, as well as for industrial research investment, by providing a Europe-wide competitive funding structure, in addition to and not replacing national funding, for ‘frontier research’ executed by individual teams. Contrary to the ‘Cooperation’ programme, the ERC is aimed at funding individual researchers and their project teams, instead of collaborative trans-national projects or networks. In this the ERC awards grants to two types of researchers, i e. Starting and Advanced researchers. In addition, in the ERC selection procedure scientific excellence is the sole evaluation criterion.

The ERC was established in 2007. Until now the results of two rounds for awarding Starting researcher grants (in 2007 and 2009) and one for awarding Advanced researcher grants (in 2008) have been published. In the first rounds of both the Starting and the Advanced grants four grants were awarded to researchers employed by Danish universities, leading to a total of eight grants (out of a total of 573 ≈ 1 4 %) awarded to researchers at two Danish universities, i e. AU (5 grants), and KU (3 grants). This result can be regarded as rather disappointing, also in comparison to the performance of other ‘small’ countries, such as Switzerland (43 grants), Sweden (29 grants) and Finland (15 grants).

Given the ERC aims, the straightforward application procedure, which is much less bureaucratic than the application procedure for the other FP7 programmes, and the limited requirements for administrating the ERC grants, some of the main arguments put forward for explaining the relative underperformance of Danish universities in the coordination of FP7 projects in the other three FP7 programmes, do not apply to the relative lack of success of Danish researchers in the first two ERC rounds. An additional argument heard during the university visits, i e. that Danish researchers are not motivated to apply because of the overall low success rates of applicants. In our view this argument is not valid, especially given the high quality of Danish university research.

The second round for awarding Starting researcher grants (in 2009) shows a somewhat different picture. In this round among the selected applicants 7 researchers are working at Danish universities (out of a total of 237 selected applicants = around 3 %, implying a doubling compared to the first two rounds). The selected researchers are working at KU (3), DTU (1), and AU (1). In addition, a researcher employed at Statens Serum Institute and a researcher working at a specialised hospital, but also employed at AU, have been selected. An additional positive aspect is that Danish researchers have been selected in all three disciplinary areas of the Starting grant programme, i e. Life sciences; Physical sciences and engineering; and Social sciences and humanities. In this round Swedish and Finnish researchers performed less well, with 5 Swedish and 6 Finnish researchers being selected

Policy issue: Stimulate EU funded research

There is a gap between, on the one side political and university leadership’s expectations with respect to the role and importance of EU research funding, and on the other side the perceptions and experiences of researchers. One of the consequences is that Danish researchers give the impression (also being confirmed by FP7 results) of not being as active in taking leadership roles in the EU research community through coordination of projects and networks as could be expected on the basis of the quality of their research output. The underlying reasons for and consequences of this gap should be addressed in an open and transparent way. The Government, the Danish research councils as well as the university leadership need to clarify and explain their arguments for putting so much emphasis on EU funding.

In addition, the way in which Danish research interests are promoted in Brussels needs to be carefully evaluated. There are clear indications that these research interests are seriously underrepresented in the EU’s decision making with respect to the EU’s research strategies and thematic focus areas, especially in the FP7 Cooperation programme.

→ Recommendations: Stimulate participation in eU funded research

> More explicit national and institutional targets with respect to EU research funding should be developed.

> The institutional leadership should more proactively stimulate the processes of academic university staff applying for EU research funding, including more universityinternal administrative support to application and project coordination tasks.

> Institutional and national strategies should be established for promoting the ERC as a new, non-bureaucratic basic research council to Danish researchers. In the formulation of these strategies successful Danish applicants of ERC grants should be involved.

5.3 Education

In this section, the Panel will refer to the goals of the mergers related to education. One of the goals of the mergers was to make additional research resources available for educational processes, leading to a strengthening of the link between higher education and research. Another expectation was that the mergers would lead to more interdisciplinary cooperation in education and more flexible and relevant degree programmes. In addition, important policy goals to strengthen education were introduced in connection with the globalisation strategy. The Panel will therefore also refer to some of these goals in this section, including the following goals: to double the number of PhD students, to increase higher education participation from 45 to 50 % of the age group, to stimulate faster study completion of higher education students and to introduce better and more structured options for Danish students for studying abroad.

As noted earlier, it is too early after the merger process to assess definitive effects on education. The Panel’s observations and assessments in this section are based on several sources – university statements; available data; and Panel’s meetings with stakeholders – keeping in mind that the effects of mergers are intertwined with those of other policy reforms introduced over the last few years, as indicated in the first paragraph. Three areas are examined: study programmes, student intakes and study progression, and conditions of study. A sense of momentum is clearly evident. New study programmes and subject offerings are in place or being developed, and there is evidence that the universities have strengthened their capacity to offer research-based education and career-relevant study programmes that fit Denmark’s needs for highly skilled labour.

5.3.1 Study programmes

New offerings

New study programmes and new subject offerings have been introduced by the Danish universities over the last few years [A9]. The university leaders with whom we met typically offered a strategic explanation for their choices of new programmes, aware of their overall strengths and how their programmes are attractive to students and to the labour market.

The Panel also was told about new offerings that were directly linked to the mergers. New programmes, for example, have been designed around student projects in laboratories of the previous GRIs. New subject areas have been established that combine the strengths of two merged units to offer study programmes responsive to emerging research areas or employer needs. Some academic staff noted that merger conversations resulted in new collaborations on study programmes among two universities even if a merger did not occur. Some academics, especially at non-merged universities, reported that the merger process had hindered their previous partnerships with GRIs that were merged. Others noted that their departments and programmes had not yet been affected.

University statements and our visits also offered examples of interdisciplinary programmes resulting from the mergers among universities or with former GRIs. On the whole, such developments still have limited scope, and are found in some universities more than in others. Most universities have working groups that are developing such programmes, and universities offered examples of new combinations of subjects that they are considering.

Researchers from the merged GRIs have become involved in teaching of both master’s and bachelor’s students and in supervision of PhD students, typically with specific assistance and support offered by the university’s departments. In several universities both master’s and PhD students have more access to sophisticated research laboratories.

The relevance of study programmes – generally judged by their fit with the needs of future employers – is given direct attention by all universities when they review existing programmes or design new programmes. “Market” or “user” needs appear to have become a routine part of university deliberations about new programmes. A number of mechanisms support this perspective. Regular surveys of employers’ views and of recent graduates offer universities up-to-date information on labour market needs and whether graduates have the skills they need. External members of the Board offer valuable perspective, as do members of advisory councils or participants in partnerships and other collaborations with business, industry, local communities or practitioner groups. For many universities, still further opportunities for closer links with industry and with practitioners have been made possible by the mergers with the GRIs.

It appears that the universities have smoothly completed the transformation to Bologna study structures. Students report, for example, a clear understanding of the bachelor’s to master’s progression, speak readily about the ECTS system, appreciate the flexibility of course choices that are available, especially in master’s programmes, and are fully aware of credit transfer options and procedures. Several universities noted that they have worked hard to establish an internal education market. This often involved holding multiple meetings to communicate the changes to students.

Internationalisation of education

International study is of interest to students, and available data suggest that a good number of Danish students are studying in other countries. The data also show some increase in the number of students coming to Danish universities from other countries. Danish students we met with were quite aware of international exchange opportunities, were open to such study when it meshed with their educational goals, and thought clearly about how such study could augment their Danish coursework. As is true in other countries, it remains difficult for students to coordinate the time they can study in EU or other settings with their own programme requirements, especially in bachelor’s programmes. This is an EU-wide problem, as there is limited overlap in term of calendars among countries.

International exchange of academic staff also takes place in both directions. Universities frequently reported problems in trying to offer attractive salaries to incoming academics, however. Students expressed no concerns about having instruction by academics from other countries. They noted that master’s level courses are taught in English but had no complaints.

As addressed in our assessments regarding autonomy (section 4 1), Danish regulations limit the international marketing of Danish study programmes, the establishment of joint degrees, and Danish universities’ participation in the Erasmus Mundus programme.

Nevertheless, figures from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation concerning bachelor’s and master’s level students show that the number of foreign exchange students enrolled in Danish universities has increased consistently over the period 2001-2007, from almost 3,000 to a little over 5,000. The number of Danish exchange students spending study time at a foreign higher education institution has only increased moderately over the same period, from 3,342 to 3,678.

PhD Education

Conditions for PhD study appear to have been strengthened during the latest years. Several universities have established new PhD schools. The Panel notes that the 2007 change of the University Act stipulated establishment of further PhD schools, and this development may therefore well be caused by the 2007 change of the University Act rather than being a direct consequence of the mergers. Data from the Ministry also point to increased PhD intake over the last several years. The total number of new PhD students in 2007 was about 1,800 and was 2,423 in 2009, a significant increase compared to 2005 (1,352). Funding of PhD fellowships remains vitally important. Several academics noted that funding has led to greater growth in “wet” fields⁷ than in “dry” fields. The Government’s announced goal of doubling the number of PhD fellowships by 2010 seems to be much needed, and may not be enough. Academic staff in many locations reported that they could accept and supervise more PhD students.

An important indicator for measuring the international attractiveness of the Danish universities is the number of their foreign PhD students. Data from the Ministry⁸ show that the number has increased by almost 150 % in the period 2000 – 2008.

Table 3: International full time PhD students in Denmark 2000-2008
	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Humanities	16	16	12	17	21	20	21	17	23
Natural Science	77	87	87	91	102	106	109	143	208
Social Science	22	27	30	32	29	27	25	31	52
Health Science	27	20	23	30	42	42	43	47	58
Technical Science	105	128	126	136	142	140	139	181	275
Total	247	278	278	306	336	335	337	419	616
Source: DUPA’s calculations on the basis of information from Statistics Denmark

→ Recommendation: Stimulate development of new study programmes

> Consider funding a one-time scheme for the development and early evaluation of new study programmes. In general, Danish universities are at an early stage in exploiting the opportunities created by the mergers, and further development of new study programmes can be expected. It should be recognized that good planning takes time and resources. Interdisciplinary programmes have special problems of integration and coherence, and may need “piloting” and revision. In many countries, universities expect academic staff to simply add such planning duties to their other assignments. However, some allocate separate funds for summer stipends or short-term “release” time from teaching duties to allow for planning. The combined effects of the Danish taximeter system and research funding may make it especially difficult to fund such planning adequately in certain fields. While this could be construed as a problem for university leaders to solve, the Panel believes that it would be useful for the political system to consider a one-time funding scheme aimed at “speeding up” desired improvements of study programmes and serve Denmark well as an investment in greater variety and stronger quality in new study programmes.

5.3.2 Student intake, progress and completion

Available data and university reports all document increasing enrolment in Danish universities at each level,(except for a drop in 2008 which reportedly was due to new demands for admission and a favourable situation on the labour market). The two-year master’s programmes have seen significant enrolment growth. This appears to be a good development, with no reports of overcrowding or disarray with growth. Universities reported plans for increased enrolment that reflect strategy choices and new recruitment initiatives. The upward trend fits with political goals, but cannot be narrowly termed a “merger effect ” Other factors – including economic uncertainties affecting employers and increased numbers in the youth age group – may have played a role.

The Panel obtained limited information with respect to the overall political goal of increasing the higher education graduation rate of the age group to 50 % by 2015. Data from the Ministry indicated that, in 2006, 45 % of a youth group completed a higher education programme, suggesting that the 50 % goal is achievable. International experience is that gains are made slowly but cannot be assumed to occur.

On-time study completion is currently an important priority in Denmark and other countries. The Danish government has set financial incentives to promote greater efficiency in this area. Data from Statistics Denmark and the Ministry show positive trends on two indicators: steadily improving rates of on-time plus one year completion and some decline in the average time spent on study through the master’s level. Such data always have a time lag, however, as the information for 1999 through 2007 actually involves students who began university study in 2003 or earlier. EU data we received for average age of completion were for an earlier year, 2005. Since the time reflected in such data, Danish universities have experienced a transitional period, as mergers were put into effect, as the Bologna structures were established, and as students experienced greater opportunities for transfer.

On these policy areas – promoting increased enrolment, a higher percentage of youth completing tertiary education, and on-time study completion – available data provide a limited perspective on any effects of the mergers. However, the general trend is favourable and Danish universities report a range of initiatives that offer a basis for expecting progress. In most countries, slow progress is most realistic to expect, given the many factors that affect overall completion. Most countries also experience differences between subject areas in average completion times, but factors vary and are best addressed within universities rather than by governmental or Parliamentary actions. The Panel has heard of examples that the change of. taximeter financing for shortening completion times has made the universities introduce rules aiming at increasing completion time, including stricter rules of completion of Master’s theses.

On-time study completion also might be enhanced by allowing greater flexibility for students who change study programmes. The “lost” time reported by such students may be educationally sound, rather than a problem, as some “catch-up” work should be expected when they enter a new study field. Nonetheless, universities might review their transfer rules to ensure a fair evaluation of how courses taken at other institutions fit with a student’s new study programme.

→ Recommendations: Increased efforts for higher enrolment

> Each university should prepare an enrolment strategy in view of the stated goal for the whole tertiary sector.

> Sector-wide goals require co-ordination across the Ministries of Education and of Science, Technology and Innovation. Denmark should examine how its universities, university colleges and other tertiary institutions share the role of increasing access and wider participation.

> Increased coordination between universities and university colleges would be needed to improve participation rates

5.3.3 conditions of study

The Panel’s meetings with students focused in part on their experiences with study programmes and possible effects of the mergers. Overall, students reported few negative effects of the merger on education, often cited positive results, and expressed satisfaction, both for themselves and for other students. However, the Panel has not found clear evidence of particular effects of the mergers on the conditions of study.

Most students displayed a strong sense of ownership in their universities and their education. A pedagogical focus on project work, both individual and in groups, was strongly valued.

Student representatives reported that their universities offer ample sources of careers guidance. Representatives also reported that students are generally aware of a range of university services and use them when they want such assistance. The universities offer careers counselling, seminars, job fairs for different study areas, and information on their websites regarding job opportunities. Some universities offer careers guidance in the early years of university study, as well as for those nearing study completion.

Students readily referred to study boards, organised for each department or study programme, as a way to discuss problems with education programmes. However, as also indicated in section 4 2 1 2, students often objected to the limited influence of the study boards.

Online course evaluations are conducted each term, allowing university leaders and study boards to monitor and correct problems that arise. Students understand the ECTS system of credits, plan according to it, and appear to appreciate the more flexible course choices that are now built into most study programmes. At some universities, students felt that programme requirements in some subjects were quite restrictive, making it difficult to pursue related courses or study abroad.

Most student groups we met with expressed concern with the ban on group exams. Some argued persuasively that the strong emphasis on group projects in Danish universities calls for a style of examining consistent with this group orientation. Some suggested that the different styles of examining lead to differences in how students prepare for exams and what they learn.

→ Recommendation: Deregulation of conditions of study

> Universities themselves should decide issues related to conditions of study, which thus should not be subject of detailed Government regulations. For example, it should be the universities themselves who should decide whether they want to practice group exams or not.

5.4 Innovation and relationship to the business sector

The current dominant political use of the term innovation has emerged from an economic debate, stressing the importance of product and process innovation for growth and jobs in a globalised world. Universities participate in this debate and pursue different ways how to link education and research to innovation activities in the economy and in society.

For some years, firms have increasingly practiced “open innovation”. They use “external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough 2006). For example, large international companies, when locating their research facilities, search for sites near universities so that they can best practice “open innovation”. Firms look for locations with strong frontier research, with a general competence base, with open-mindedness, and with flexibility.

When engaging in innovation activities, it will be important for universities not only to better exploit existing knowledge, but also to develop upstream strategies. Upstream strategies should look for building up new knowledge in emerging fields by hiring world class people and by investing in the appropriate infrastructure. This implies institutional strategies, which should include the shifting of human and non-human resources “out of old fields and into new fields”. It also implies changing curricula in order to attract students in areas where new jobs are created and growth occurs. Upstream strategies are especially needed in the fields of pharmaceuticals, energy, environment, e-health, transport, and logistics, where there are and will be a strong innovation demand (Aho-Report 2006).

Innovation-oriented collaboration of universities can be studied, amongst other things, by looking at research-financing by private sources (see section 5 4 1). The integration of GRIs into universities (see section 5 4 2) is supposed to strengthen the universities in such a way that they can play a more important role in innovation activities, in private sector companies as well as public sector organisations.

5.4.1 Relationship to private sector companies

The Danish policy goals regarding innovation have been operationalised in an ‘Innovation Action Plan’ published in 2007 by the Danish Council for Technology and Innovation. The main objectives of the Plan are to make all Danish enterprises, including SMEs, more innovative. The action plan intends to turn 5,000 SMEs into innovative enterprises and to encourage an additional 2,000 SMEs to employ workers with higher educational qualifications. Knowledge transfer and collaboration between research and private enterprises are intended to be strengthened. Key targets are the doubling of the number of industrial PhDs to 500 a year and to establish 500 new knowledge transfer projects between private enterprises and knowledge institutions.

As shown in table 4, the Danish university sector receives a much higher share of the public national R&D expenditures than the universities in many comparable countries. Only the Netherlands shows a higher value for HERD than Denmark. However, the Danish figure of 26 1% in 2006 is obviously not including the results of the mergers of 2007. If only half of the Danish governmental research (GOVRD) reported in 2006 is included in HERD, Danish universities would receive the highest share of all countries reported in the list.

Yet, when it comes to financing university research by business enterprises, Danish universities are situated at the lowest end of comparable countries. The last column in table 4 indicates that the share of private companies in financing public research is, comparatively speaking, very low, only 2.3 %.

Table 4: Private and public shares of research financing for selected countries
	R&D share of GDP	Business research as share of total R &D	University research as share of total R &D (HERD)	Governmental research as share of total R &D (GOV RD)	HERD+GOVRD financed by business enterprise
Denmark	2.43%	66.6%	26.1%	6.7%	2.3%
Sweden	3.73%	74.9%	20.4%	4.5%	4.5%
Finland	3.37%	71.5%	18.7%	9.7%	8.6%
Germany	2.53%	69.9%	16.3%	13.8%	12.2%
UK	1.78%	61.7%	26.1%	10.0%	5.9%
USA	2.61%	70.3%	14.3%	11.1%	2.7%
Netherlands	1.67%	57.6%	28.2%	14.1%	10.0%
Switzerland	2.90%	73.7%	22.9%	1.1%	8.3%
Source: European Commission, Science, Technology and Competitiveness. Key Figures. Report 2008/2009, Brussels 2008, pp 35-37 All data refer to 2006, latest data available

The low share is confirmed by a recently published report of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation⁹. According to this report, around 2.3 % of university research is funded by private companies. This figure implies that Danish universities are ranked at the 27^th position among a total of 34 OECD, EU and BRIC countries when it comes to the proportion of university research that is funded by private sector. Regarding this issue, Danish university research is thus far away from those countries where universities have the highest level of external research funds from the private sector. Among the most research intensive OECD countries, South Korea and Germany are ranked highest with about 14 % of university research funded by the private sector. A comparison among Nordic countries shows that Danish universities, with 2.3 % of their research funded by private companies, are below the level of Sweden and Norway (resp. 5 % and 4 %), Finland (7 %) and Iceland (11 %).

The quantitative implication of private financing to universities is underlined by the following scenario: If Denmark had a situation comparable to Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland or Finland (around 10 % of university research financed by the private sector, instead of the present 2 3-2 5 %), universities in Denmark could raise an amount of up to €100 million per year from the private sector as a financial contribution to their research.

A first possible explanation for the low ratio of private financing of Danish university research could be that Danish university research is rather irrelevant to private companies. It may be too academic for business or concentrated in areas with low business interest. However, another and probably more likely explanation, is the tradition in Denmark for a high ratio of public funding of university research combined with the high level of Danish taxes. This tradition would imply that university research is regarded to be the responsibility of the State and that publicly financed university research is considered to be a public good, from which the Danish enterprises may benefit.

The expectation of high public financing of university research is underlined by the particular Danish industry structure, which is dominated by small and medium sized enterprises with only a few large companies. The Danish SMEs have less tradition and much less means for financing university research than the large companies.

Furthermore, the low business financing percentage only shows the direct industry financing to universities. It does not include the financing to university research from large independent foundations established by large Danish companies, such as Carlsberg, Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, Velux, Rockwool, Realdania and many others.

→ Recommendation: Develop a strategy regarding university-industry collaboration

Despite the various explanations contributing to the particularly low Danish percentage of private financing for universities compared with other countries, it is the overall impression of the Panel that the private financing for Danish universities is much lower than in comparable countries. It is highly likely that the low percentage reflects a much lower level of university-industry collaboration in Denmark than in comparable countries. We find this a matter of concern in relation to the policy goals of strengthened innovation in the Danish society and industry.

> The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, together with the universities and the business sector, should develop a strategy for how to intensify the relation of universities with the business sector. The strategy could for example be based on the Danish ‘Innovation Action Plan’, and on further investigations regarding Danish university-industry collaboration and private funding of university research, including an assessment on the appropriate balance between public and private financing of university research in the context of the Danish system.

> The universities should intensify their relations with the business sector.

> Danish business should be ready to treat the outcome of university research not just as a public good. The government may help Danish firms by granting special tax deductions. The issue, of course, is where to fix the borderline between the production of public and of private goods.

5.4.2 Integrating the GRIs with universities

A decision taken in the framework of the Danish Globalisation Strategy consisted in integrating Government Research Institutions (GRIs) into universities. The overall goals were to create research synergies that would strengthen public research, to fertilise university research with close contacts with the professions and the public sector, as well as to improve the quality and relevance of higher education by making research resources available for strengthening the research basis of educational activities. Our assessments related to these goals are addressed in previous sections. In addition, it was a goal to strengthen the collaboration between universities and industry in order to increase innovation in Danish industry. We have addressed the industrial innovation and universities’ relation to private sector in section 5 4 1.

Here, we focus on the strengthening of the universities' contribution to public innovation and their relation to public autorities as a consequence of the mergers betweeen universities and GRIs. Although no guiding model or "master plan" was provided by the government, two principles guided the integration of GRIs in universities: (1) the integration should preferably be supported by the boards of the GRIs, which had an advisory role towards the responsible minister and (2) induvidual GRIs should not be divided into small units or be divided between different universities [A2].

Strengthening of education activities as well as of research at universities

During its visits, the Panel observed that the goals of strengthening education as well as research at universities are increasingly met. Researchers of the merged-in GRIs seem to be satisfied with finding teaching opportunities, and students appear to appreciate the tendency of further and broadened study programmes. We heard it suggested, though, that the training opportunities in teaching for the integrated previous GRI-researchers should be widened.

Although there appeared to have been an initial scepticism on how the more service oriented research of GRIs would get along with the more scholarship type of research at universities, a constructive dialogue between the two sides of research seems to have been initiated. This constructive dialogue paves the way for new research opportunities within the merged institutions.

→ Recommendations: Strengthening of university profiles

> Support the further development of appropriate university profiles. The voluntary character of the mergers as well as the decision not to accept any division of a GRI between various universities raises the question whether the mergers have provided sufficient support for developing appropriate university profiles. From that perspective it can be recommended that the development in the long run of those mergers where geography (distance) or substantive differences might lead to diminishing synergies should be monitored carefully.

> The broad research strength of the universities should be further elaborated for further strengthening research areas and profiles of universities. This work would benefit from becoming linked with the considerations recommended in section 5 5 2 on integrating still non-merged GRIs into universities.

> Secure that the research basis for the government commissioned services at universities is sustainable. The Panel recommends perseverance and long-term planning for the research basis of the universities’ provision of the government commissioned services, even if public calls for some of the services will be introduced.

5.5 Non-merged universities and government research institutions

5.5.1 Three non-merged universities

The Panel’s schedule included visits to the three Danish universities that were not merged: Copenhagen Business School, IT University, and Roskilde University. Each had considered some forms of merger during the planning process, but at this point remain stand-alone universities. Each has a distinctive profile. CBS has a large student body, with more than 12,000 students in 2007, spread evenly between bachelor’s and master’s students, and with 168 PhD students. It offers 22 bachelor’s programmes and 27 master’s programmes, generally in business and related subjects (e g , law, economics, communications), and has an international profile, including international accrediting credentials, a large number of partnerships with foreign universities, and a sizeable international student population. ITU, founded in 2003, had a student body of about 1,000 students in 2007, primarily master’s students but also including 43 PhD students and 46 students admitted to the first bachelor’s programme at ITU, which was opened by 2007. ITU offers 7 master’s programmes, including e-Business. Roskilde University had a student body of about 7,300 students in 2007, including 4,000 for bachelor’s programmes, another 3,300 in master’s programmes, and 246 PhD students. Its largest programmes are in the social sciences and humanities, along with communication and related fields.

The Danish Government obviously expects each of these non-merged universities to contribute to the broad goals announced as part of the merger process, including strengthened education and research. The recent period undoubtedly created some uncertainties for each of these universities.

While all three expressed positive views about their non-merged status, each faces special challenges in the changed university landscape in Denmark. For CBS, the Panel recognises its ambition to be a top-level business school acknowledged across Europe and globally, and notes its strong record in attracting international students and in arranging study abroad opportunities for its Danish students. CBS, in its written statement, indicated that in 2008 it was successful with 8 out of 19 FP7 applications, and that it has set further improvement in such funding as a priority.

Roskilde University also has a distinctive profile and contribution within Denmark. It is well known for its interdisciplinary research and education, including a project- and problem-oriented approach that is much valued by its students and graduates.

IT University, the newest university in Denmark, is distinctive for its emphasis on several IT study fields and its pedagogical approach that allows bachelor’s degree students from other study fields to begin IT study at the master’s level.

The Panel notes that both CBS and Roskilde University share some special challenges related to their current profiles. Both enrol most of their students in study fields that receive the lowest taximeter rates and both state that historically they have received lower levels of public research funding. As can be seen in Table 5 in Annex 7, CBS still receives by far the lowest level of basic research funding as part of its overall budget. As they report, they thus suffer from modest overall funding on an ongoing basis. Both universities have plans to expand and diversify their other sources of funding. CBS, for example, has decided to build its tuition fee income from foreign students and to increase its international research funding.

ITU, as a new institution with students primarily enrolled in a higher taximeter tier, does not share these challenges but, due to its small size, faces other challenges. As noted in the Research section of this report, ITU has not, as yet, been successful in winning EU research funding in the Cooperation programme of FP7. This is all the more striking since AAU has been highly successful in winning research funding in the IT sub-programme of FP7 Cooperation. In addition, the ITU has not established a record of strong commercialisation of its research.

The Panel also has concern that ITU’s educational programmes are vulnerable, not only because the programmes are small but also because the administrative and academic infrastructure is quite small. With a limited number of full professors and associate professors at ITU, they must share a heavy burden of serving on committees, as heads of studies, as PhD supervisors, or administrators and, consequently, are less available for teaching. It is difficult for small programmes with relatively few instructors to provide the sustained education quality and coherence that is needed to ensure successful completion of studies over the long term. We were told that, for some study programmes, teaching is carried out largely by professors affiliated with other universities. The e-Business programme is, for example, taught by professors from the Copenhagen Business School. ITU students regularly take courses offered by the University of Copenhagen or other universities. This raises the question of whether the distinctive pedagogical approach and philosophy espoused by the ITU experiment can be executed effectively under the vulnerable situation of ITU. It should also be noted that ITU’s initial objective and distinctive approach can now be found in other universities.

The small size of ITU’s academic staff also creates vulnerability for PhD education. PhD students need to have close, continuing supervision on a very specific research area from a supervisor with expertise in that area, yet ITU can provide only a limited range of expertise to support PhD research. Because ITU has relatively few professors, some with ties to business or industry that might draw them away, there is a further risk for maintaining the continuity of supervision needed by PhD students. In addition, at our visit in August some of the industry representatives indicated that they realise the enormous efforts necessary for attaining the critical mass needed to develop ITU into a sustainable university, and that they no longer insist on a separate IT university. ITU has apparently not been able to develop a sufficiently broad research platform to support a sustainable PhD education structure of its own nor been able to sufficiently satisfy the expectations of private sector companies operating in the IT areas covered by ITU.

→ Recommendation: Dialogue on the future position of iTU

> The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation should start a dialogue with ITU for determining ITU’s future position in the Danish university landscape. The aim of this dialogue should be to identify one or more possible merger partners for ITU. The three non-merged universities all have distinctive institutional profiles. The Panel finds, though, that the situation of ITU clearly differs from the situation of the other two nonmerged universities. The IT University is overall too small and vulnerable to be able to operate in a satisfying way as a stand-alone university. Amongst other things, the vulnerability of the PhD education of ITU is high and the institutional basic research platform to support the PhD education, as well as the relationship to industry, is not sufficiently strong.

5.5.2 The non-merged GRIs

Background and institutional profiles

In January 2007, nine public GRIs were integrated into universities, in the form of facul-ties, departments or professional units. The overall positive experience of the merged GRIs was discussed in section 5 4 2. Here the focus is on the four GRIs which were not merged: NFA (National Research Centre for the Working Environment, under the Ministry of Employment); the Danish National Centre for Social Research (SFI, under the Ministry of Interior and Social Affairs); the Kennedy Centre (under the Ministry of Health and Prevention); and the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS, under the Ministry of Climate and Energy). The Statens Serum Institut was not part of the evaluation on the grounds that this GRI holds particular national responsibilities, amongst other things, for preventing epidemia/pandemia. Furthermore 80-90 percent of the institution’s turnover is generated from commercial sales of vaccines, serums, etc.

The Panel met with representatives of the four non-merged GRIs and officials of the responsible Ministries. The four GRIs have very different profiles and face very different situations. The Geological Survey is the largest with an annual turnover of 280 million DKK and over 300 full time staff. Its main tasks are geological mapping, data collection and storage, carrying out research projects, giving advice and disseminating geo-scientific knowledge. It supports administrative and legislative work in Danish Ministries and the Greenland Home Rule Authority. At the same time, it participates in cooperative arrangements with the University of Copenhagen (Departments of Geography and Geology, and the Geology Museum) as part of Geocenter Denmark, which numbers 500 employees and 1,000 graduate and PhD students.

NFA has a staff of 154 and had in 2007 a total budget of approximately 105 million DKK, of which 63 % was basic government grants. As a national institute for working environment research, NFA is dedicated to promoting a safe, healthy and progressive working environment. It conducts strategic research, especially in support of companies’ efforts to improve working environment, and monitors and coordinates Danish work environment research. There is teaching and PhD mentoring.

The SFI has a full time staff of 140 (60 researchers) and an annual income of over 115 million DKK, 70 % of which is allocated to research and evaluation projects. SFI’s main objective is to supply relevant knowledge for shaping and evaluating Danish social welfare policies. It pursues these objectives through two main arms: SFI Survey collects and processes data for use by researchers, public authorities, private organisations and enterprises. SFI CAMPBELL conducts multi-disciplinary research on the impact of social programmes. SFI has bilateral co-operation agreements with the universities of Copenhagen, Aarhus and Aalborg, and with Universities Denmark. 11 of SFI’s researchers teach at four universities and SFI staff supervises 35 MSc students and are primary and secondary supervisors to 12 PhD students.

The Kennedy Centre is a national research and advisory centre on genetics, visual impairment, and mental retardation. Its staff numbers approximately 85 and it has an annual income of 70 million DKK. This institution has been involved in a special process. The Government had aimed to integrate this institution into Region Copenhagen and associate it with Glostrup Hospital and the Copenhagen University Hospital. However, the final status of the institution has not been decided by the Government yet [A5, 8 June 2009].

Issues and Options

The nine GRI mergers raise the question of the continued usefulness and viability of the still non-merged part of the research-based public service sector in Denmark. The Government should face the question whether the four non-merged GRIs should be maintained as independent organisations or be merged as well, whether with a university or another institution. One consideration is that where previously the GRIs formed a specific sector with their own legal foundation and labour conditions, the remaining GRIs are too few in number and small in size to legitimately still be able to be regarded as a separate sector.

The background documentation provided by the four unmerged institutions and the in-terviews with their representatives made a case for maintaining the status quo. The arguments differed because of the differing circumstances of the GRIs.

GEUS argued that parts of its services to the government are of a confidential nature, which could be compromised if it was part of a university. In any event, through participation in Geocenter it has good synergies with the University of Copenhagen. The Board of Governors of NFA recommends the Institute’s continued independence on the grounds that it is fully meeting the goals of the Globalisation Strategy. regarding research-based ministerial preparedness, research quality, and internationalisation. It has good quality (justified to some extent on the basis of a recent evaluation), benefits from synergies with universities, and responds well to societal demands. NFA argues that the multi-disciplinary OSH (occupational safety and health) research would be hard to maintain within a university setting. In addition, it is argued that OSH needs to be close to the practitioners in the industry and the Ministry. Similar arguments have been advanced by the Kennedy Centre: Health care is not usually a part of the universities. The Centre provides a way of capturing the synergies between care and treatment on the one hand and research on the other, which would be lost in a university setting. SFI’s Board argued that the Centre serves as a network that brings researchers from universities and research institutions together in multidisciplinary teams, and that this pivotal role will be lost with a university merger. One SFI representative put the case strongly: if SFI is merged with a university, it will need to be reinvented. In any event, according to SFI, there is already good co-operation with the university sector.

The Panel has thus heard the arguments put forward by the unmerged GRIs for continued independence. In most cases we do not find these arguments persuasive, but find that they need to be assessed on the basis of clearly articulated criteria for decision making on whether or not a merger should be pursued.

Several elements of the criteria need to be considered. But first two general observations: Whether or not a specific GRI should be merged depends in the first place on the possibility of a good match with a university. The Panel does for example not find that the confidentiality argument raised by GEUS is particularly strong in justifying its continuous independence. Arrangements for confidential research can be made with the universities, just as it can be with a government research institution.

The most important elements of the decision criteria concern the impact of a merger on quality. Defined broadly, it includes the following elements: contribution to strategic profiling of the merged institutions through creation of a critical mass; synergies in research; contribution to education and relating existing teaching and tutoring in a controlled university setting; quality of service to the government; and strengthening connections with industry and society.

The potential impact of a merger based on these criteria may be illustrated with a few examples. Assuming that there is a positive match, a merger can potentially improve strategic profiling of a university by strengthening specialisation in a particular area. A pooling of resources that a merger can bring about should assist in developing a critical mass in more areas, contrary to a dilution of resources, as NFA argues would be the case. In fact, the independent evaluation of NFA carried out in 2008 recommended a reduced number of research priorities (from seven to four) precisely because of a lack of a critical mass in those areas. With regard to the impact on quality of service to the government, a post-merger agreement for competition-based contracts for those services offers a means for improved quality. With regard to linkages with industry, the applied nature of the research done by the GRIs can potentially strengthen this aspect of the universities, which is at present relatively weak in Denmark. Similarly, the Panel does not find SFI’s arguments – that it already co-operates with the universities and that its critical role as a network coordinator would be lost if it was located within a university – persuasive. On the contrary we think that there can be significant benefits from a merger with a university in developing synergies in both education and research through building stronger multi-disciplinary critical mass and in being subject to more stringent quality demands. A merger would be an appropriate solution to the two major obstacles faced by SFI, as identified by a 2009 evaluation of the institution: a methodological divide of qualitative and quantitative work, with insufficient use made of its surveys; and a “two-box” divide between basic research and evaluation research [Evaluation of SFI 2009].

→ Recommendation: Reconsider integration of the non-merged GRIs into universities

> The government should reconsider the position of the non-merged GRIs as separate institutions outside the university sector. The main arguments for integrating them in universities are enhanced quality as regards research, research based education, new educational opportunities for students and new links to other parts of society. The international position of Denmark in the research areas concerned could also be improved by an integration of the non-merged GRIs with universities.

5.6 Food Forum

In the framework of the merger processes the Danish agriculture and food industry made a plea for the establishment of one strong university for agricultural and food sciences; a plea that was not realised. Instead, the agricultural and food sciences have been placed in three universities, and the Danish Food Forum was established with a mandate to coordinate between the agricultural and food industry, the agricultural sector and the university sector. From the beginning the Food Forum was in a rather disadvantageous position since its terms of reference were rather unclear, and the Forum did not receive a sufficient budget of its own. This position is also reflected in the opinions of those involved with the Forum, ranging from strong support (“if the Forum did not exist it should be invented”), indifference, to strong criticism, and the suggestion to abandon it.

It is the impression of the Panel that the involved parties find that the mergers as such have not had a positive impact on the cooperation between the food and agricultural industry and the universities, partly as a result of the lack of coordination and cooperation between the post-merger universities. Instead of cooperation, the specific areas covered by the Food Forum are characterised by more competition apparently making it difficult to initiate projects that would require the involvement of more than one university. An evaluation by the LMC (Centre for Advanced Food Studies) International Advisory Board has even drawn the conclusion that the inter-university competition might jeopardize the leading international position of the Danish food industry. Also the dissatisfying results of the Danish universities, especially in the KBBE part of the EU’s FP7¹⁰, are partly blamed on the limited post-merger coordination between universities, agricultural sector, and industry. Furthermore the universities have not been able to increase the number of students in the programmes of direct relevance for the food and agricultural industry, while also the cooperation between the universities and Danish university colleges was seen as insufficient. Finally, there seems to be a lack of coordination with respect to the PhD schools in the areas in question.

All in all the Panel got the impression that, first, many of the participants are dissatisfied with the functioning of the Food Forum; second, the expectations with respect to the positive effects of the Food Forum and the university mergers on the number of students in food (and agricultural) related fields (especially in master’s programmes), and on food (and agricultural) research (including an increase in EU funding) have not been realised.

From that starting point the Panel wonders whether the main underlying national issue is whether Denmark wants to maintain if not strengthen its leading role in agricultural and food industry production and export. Assuming that this is the case, the food and agricultural industry (and agricultural export) related university education and research activities can be supported and stimulated more effectively and transparently in the framework of a national ‘Food strategy’, including health and sustainable agriculture aspects (not unlike the Globalisation Strategy).

→ Recommendation: Develop a national food strategy

> Consider setting up a working group for the development of a national strategy addressing a national food strategy. The mandate of such a working group should also include the development of a more effective ‘meeting point’ for the food/agricultural industry interests and the universities (and other knowledge organisations) involved in teaching and research activities in food/agricultural fields.

From the observations the Panel has made it can be concluded that the Food Forum in its current set up is not functioning effectively. If the Danish Government wants to make the interaction between the food/agricultural industry and the public sector on the one side and the universities on the other side more effective, it could consider setting up a working group for the development of a national strategy addressing the above questions. The mandate of such a working group should also include the development of a more effective ‘meeting point’ for the food/agricultural industry interests and the universities (and other knowledge organisations) involved in teaching and research activities in food/agricultural fields.

The Danish food industry is a world leader, based on long traditions, and represents many important national interests. Consequently, the knowledge, skills and competence base for the food industry is a national strategic issue. If the leadership position of the Danish food industry is to be maintained in the future, it is important to develop a national strategy for food industry and food industry related research and innovation. The main questions in this include first with respect to research and innovation:

> What are the food and agricultural areas where Denmark is/wants to be world leader? > What kind of knowledge basis is needed? Is the current knowledge basis satisfying? > Which universities/university units are the nodes in the Danish food and agricultural industry focused knowledge basis? How can this basis be maintained and strengthened?

> Is the research / knowledge production and application capacity sufficient (qualitatively and quantitatively)?

> How does the Danish food and agricultural industry research capacity relate to international knowledge and research nodes?

> How successful are Danish universities (and other units) in attracting competitive research funding, nationally and internationally (especially in the EU’s FP7)?

Second, with respect to the education and training of people working as researchers in / leading the food and agricultural industry, as well as related areas such as food control, and agricultural sustainability, the main questions include:

> What kind of master/PhD programmes does Denmark have? > What are the student behaviour factors that influence the enrolment level in these programmes?

> How do the programmes relate to the training needs of industry?

> Do the universities have satisfying lifelong learning structures?

5.7 Recommendations on mergers

In chapter 3 the Panel has posed the question whether the new Danish landscape of universities and research is adequate for best serving the interests of the Danish society and economy and whether the mergers have created a basis for stronger university profiles.

> With respect to the individual universities, though the mergers are not yet fully materialised, the Panel finds overall positive effects from the integration of the GRIs and universities as well as the mergers between universities. The mergers have been change drivers for the universities. The Panel has found that the mergers have created an input for stronger university profiles and thereby improved the universities’ capacity for strategic prioritising. As the question of university profiles did not exist as a key issue for the mergers, it might now be time for discussing the advantages and disadvantages of profiling the universities. The Panel therefore recommends a debate on university system diversity, aimed at determining what kind of diversity basis the system should have. The discussion may include possible targets for the university system as well as for each individual university when it comes to research output and impact. Such targets may be included in the development contracts and should be based on proposals from the universities.

> The mergers have created a new Danish ‘map of universities and research’. The Panel’s overall impression is that this new landscape offers a potentially diverse research basis of both basic and applied research for the diverse educational programmes developed in recent years. Nevertheless, we recommend the adequacy of this new landscape to be discussed for serving the interests of the Danish society and economy. The Panel recommends the landscape to be adjusted with further mergers and other adjustments.

> The three non-merged universities all have distinctive institutional profiles. The Panel finds, though, that the situation of ITU clearly differs from the situation of the other two non-merged universities. The IT University is overall too small and vulnerable to be able to operate in a satisfying way as a stand-alone university. Amongst other things, the vulnerability of the PhD education of ITU is high and the institutional basic research platform to support the PhD education, as well as the relationship to industry, is not sufficiently strong. The Panel therefore recommends the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation to start a dialogue with ITU for determining its future position in the Danish university landscape. The aim of this dialogue should be to identify one or more possible merger partners for ITU.

> Concerning the still non-merged GRIs, the Panel recommends the government to recon-sider the position of them as separate institutions outside the university sector. The Panel does not consider it within its competence to identify specific merger matches for the remaining unmerged GRIs. These decisions should be made on the basis of clear and transparent criteria in order to strengthen certain research areas, research based education and improved relations to other parts of society. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation should develop criteria for strategic decision regarding the unmerged GRIs.

> In recognising the methodological limitations, imposed by the very short period since the mergers, the evaluation framework also addresses the possible effects of the mergers on education, research, and innovation, as well as the universities’ relationship with the private sector and with government-oriented research. The Panel finds it difficult to relate the international impact of research to the mergers, not only regarding the mentioned limitations, but also as “impact on research” is not operationalised clearly. The Panel recommends EU-funding to be further stimulated, especially regarding ERC and by taking leadership roles through coordination of Cooperation projects and networks.

> The Panel has seen some new offerings in education as a result of the mergers and the competence from the GRIs has to some extent been introduced in study programmes. We recommend further exploitation of the opportunities created by the mergers, as well as regular reviews of programmes. In addition, we recommend an evaluation of the challenges and difficulties the Danish universities face in comparison with other European universities in developing and maintaining international collaborations in education, e g. in the area of joint degree programmes.

> As regards university relation to the private sector, the Panel recommends the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, in collaboration with the universities, to initiate further investigations and develop a strategy regarding the Danish university-industry collaboration and the private sector funding of university research. The further strategy planning could take basis in the 2007 Innovation Action Plan, and should include specific actions to strengthen university-private sector collaboration, including private sector funding of university research.

> The Panel recommends the Danish Government to make the interaction between the food/agricultural industry and the universities more effective. This may be based on the development of a national strategy, for instance, by setting up a working group. The mandate of such a working group should include an evaluation of the earlier mergers involving food/ agricultural institutions in order to develop a more effective arena for the food/agricultural industry interests and the universities and other knowledge organisations involved in teaching and research activities in food/agricultural fields.

Fodnoter

---

¹ See: Forskningsbarometer 2009 – Dansk forskning i internationalt perspektiv. København: Ministeriet for Videnskab,Teknologi og Udvikling; section 2 4 publikationer og citationer; figures 2 20, 2 21 and 2 22.

² See: http://www che de/downloads/CHE_AP124_ExcellenceRanking_2009 pdf

³ Encompassing biology, chemistry, economics, mathematics, physics, political science and psychology

⁴ See: Forskningsbarometer 2009 – Dansk forskning i internationalt perspektiv. København: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling; section 1 2 international konkurrence om forskningsmidler, pp. 20-28

⁵ FP7 is organised in four programmes, called Cooperation, Ideas, People and Capacities. The Cooperation programme supports international collaborative projects and networks in ten areas, i e. health; knowledge based bio-economy (KBBE: food, agriculture, and fisheries, and biotechnology); information and communication technologies (ICT); nanosciences, nanotechnologies, materials & new production technologies (NMP); energy; environment (incl. climate change); transport (incl. aeronautics); socio-economic sciences and the humanities; space; and security. It has a budget of over € 32 billion, implying that it represents nearly 2/3 of the overall FP7 budget. The Ideas programme of FP7 is implemented by the ERC, with a budget of around € 7.5 billion. The ERC has been established under FP7 and consists of an independent scientific committee and an executive agency responsible for its administration. The People programme is aimed at making Europe more attractive for the world’s best researchers. It includes the Marie Curie actions, and has a budget of over € 4.7 billion. Finally, the Capacities programme wants to enhance research and innovation capacities Europe and ensure their optimal use. It has a budget of almost € 4.1 billion and supports, amongst other things, research for the benefit of SMEs and research infrastructure

⁶ In its most recent research barometer (Forskningsbarometer 2009 – Dansk forskning i internationalt perspektiv. København: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling,p. 19) the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation has presented the following arguments concerning the use of the EU’s FP7 as an indicator for research quality: ”Bevillingsstatistik fra EU’s 7. rammeprogram er anvendt som kvalitetsindikator i barometeret,fordi konkurrence om forskningsmidler generelt antages at være kvalitetsfremmende. Hertil kommer flere analyser, der identificerer sammenhæng mellem forskningskvalitet og rammeprogramdeltagelse. En nylig bibliometrisk analyse af forskere fra forskningsprojekter finansieret af EU’s 6. Rammeprogram har således påvist, at de pågældende forskere lå bedre, hvad angik publikationer og citationer end deres respektive fagfæller. Den nylige evaluering af Sveriges deltagelse i EU’s rammeprogrammer konkluderer tilsvarende med henvisning til nationale svenske forskningsfinansierende organer, som har vurderet kvaliteten af EU-finansierede forskningsprojekter, at projekter finansieret via EU’s rammeprogrammer generelt er af høj kvalitet ”

⁷ ”Wet” fields are Natural, Technical and Health Sciences, whereas ”dry” fields are humanities and social sciences.

⁸ See: http://www ubst dk/uddannelse-og-forskning/uddannelsesstatistik/ph-d-uddannelsen

⁹ Forskningsbarometer 2009 – Dansk forskning i internationalt perspektiv. København: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling, pp. 25, 28,

¹⁰ See note 5

This page is chapter 5 of 6 to the publication "The University Evaluation 2009 Evaluation report".

© Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen
Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling 2009. The text can be used freely with source reference.