Research, development and innovation activities

The university strategic plan for 2016–2020 identifies five strategic objectives. These emphasise the importance of the five focus areas, the importance of critical mass and international networks, high quality infrastructure and support services, complying with open science and systematically enhancing impact. The revised resource allocation model, HR policy and the recruitment strategy, as well as the strategic research fund, reinforce this strategic approach. There is a clear delineation of roles and responsibilities for each research actor (e.g. Rector, Vice Rector of research, Dean, Head of research unit, individual researchers) and unit (Board of Directors, Research Management Group, Research Council) with respect to promoting and enhancing the quality and development of research. Underpinning these efforts, the university has established an annual operations and quality management system. A research assessment exercise (RAE) was conducted in 2007, and again in 2014.

The RAE involved a comprehensive review of research activity, using international peer-reviewers;

49 self-formed research communities comprising researchers from several departments and faculties participated, albeit participation was voluntary. The aim was to assess research quality and identify strong areas of research, to build critical mass, to strengthen multi- and interdisciplinary research and international recruitment, and to promote mobility among Finnish researchers. The results of the RAE were used to inform strategic priority areas. The PDCA loop was evidenced by the process, which was verified by researchers in the interviews.

The university relies on international peer review to assess research quality. It balances this with the use of bibliometric indicators, with particular emphasis on the number of Jufo classified publications⁴ as well as the level of research funding, especially from the Academy of Finland.

Going forward, and given the breadth of university research and the university’s role within this region of Finland, the audit team considers it important to re-consider emphasis on journal impact factors and funding. Care should be taken with respect to unintentional impacts on particular disciplines, such as the Humanities and Social Sciences, and the university’s orientation. The audit team recommends that the university identify a wider set of research indicators, including the impact of research on society and the region (see also chapter 6.4). There is considerable work going on in this regard at the European Union level and internationally, which would be helpful in the process.

Operating in a competitive environment, nationally and internationally, puts quality at the forefront of RDI. Quality is measured using indicators such as peer-reviewed publications, publication impact factor and research funding obtained from the Academy of Finland. There is regular reporting on research activity, and the research support services provide information about forthcoming research funding opportunities and provides help with applications. All academics are expected to teach and do research albeit the precise balance is discussed as part of the personal development plan conversations.

Despite the university undertaking significant change in a short period of time, in the interviews there was general applause for the strategy especially with respect to it providing a clear direction and differentiation for the university and its research. Throughout, personal support had been 4 The Jufo Publication Forum is a classification of publication channels created by the Finnish scientific community to support

the quality assessment of academic research. It is accessible online at http://www.julkaisufoorumi.fi/en

provided to those wanting it. Focus on the Arctic was especially welcomed as a way of bringing different elements of the research together with a common focus on the region and local communities. Yet, the audit team sees that the new organisational model carries some risk.

The resource allocation model – which aims to reward and incentivise research in high-impact journals – carries unintended consequences because of how it measures different disciplinary fields and quality using traditional bibliometric measures. This process has particular implications for humanities and education researchers. A similar effect is possible because regional impact, including collaboration with local stakeholders, was not formally recognised, with implications for particular fields and the university’s broader mission. This latter point is also evident in the fact that linkages between research and development and innovation are weakly articulated. The Future Factory initiative, which is a competition whereby students are introduced to one of the university’s five research themes, aims to offer new students an active start to their studies. This has the potential to help overcome some of these gaps, but it is early days.

Participation in quality work

The process by which the five research focus areas were identified is a good illustration of how the quality management system functions. Professors came together, in several workshops, to identify the global challenges and common areas; the process involved looking at areas of research focus and expertise, with data and analysis drawn from the most recent RAE. A competence-based survey sought to align research units, and individual researchers, with the focus areas, and also to help identify requisite support mechanisms. There are regular meetings between researchers and Deans, with concurrent meetings within the research units. Large research units have formal meetings between Head of the research unit and sub-groups and individual researchers, while smaller groups (e.g. single researchers with post-docs and doctoral students) operate on a more informal basis. The participation of docents and doctoral students in the process, including identification of the five research areas, and their knowledge of the process, was not systematic across the university.

The regularity and formality of research team meetings is best suited to large groups, although even smaller groups reported that they met frequently as a team. The main difference is in the scale of activities, the capacity of the group to generate and host seminars, etc. The process itself generates its own feedback loop. The extent of change across the university has impacted most aspects of university life, and has created additional requirements on individuals. For people involved in RDI, there is general approval of the process and the orientation of these changes.

While procedures around research ethics and promotion of open science are well recognised and supported by the research support services, there is some unevenness with respect to other aspects of quality management. For example, there is no consistent training for research supervision or research ethics and IPR, and pedagogic training is voluntary.

External stakeholders were not involved in the actual strategic reorganisation or identification of the five focus areas, but overall were positive about them. They helped strengthen and freshen up the university’s position. Given the types of employment available in the Oulu region, stakeholders

found it easier to approach and work with technological faculties, to develop research projects on real-life topics and to jointly supervise students. Similar linkages are developed through the various Tellus Innovation Arena initiatives. These all provide vital feedback albeit there did not appear to be a systematic process with respect to RDI.

Quality management of key support services

The research support services have undergone significant reorganisation. They can be divided across research funding support, institutional research and research assessment and evaluation;

commercialisation and technology transfer; and entrepreneurship and business links. Together, they have a high level of expertise, and provide the typical range of support services found in most universities of Oulu’s size and mission. While the reorganisation into a more disaggregated structure seems to have been made in response to requests from researchers for greater subsidiarity, there is a risk that this can lead to the fragmentation of service provision. This tension may also be due to the fact that separate aspects of research support services, e.g. research support office pre- and post- award, as well as commercialisation and engagement, all come under the remit of different Vice Rectors. Thus, the extent to which the services provide coherent and integrated service is not yet evident, and the audit team recommends that attention be paid to this.