Higher Education Policy, 2010, 23, (295 – 316) r 2010 International Association of Universities 0952-8733/10 www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/

The Research Mission of Universities of Applied Sciences and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe Benedetto Leporia and Svein Kyvikb a

Center for Organizational Research, University of Lugano, Lugano 6900, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected] b NIFU STEP Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education, Oslo, Norway. E-mail: [email protected]

This article presents a comparative analysis of the development of research in universities of applied sciences (UAS) in eight European countries and its implications for the configuration of the higher education system. The enhancement of research has mostly been seen as a case of academic drift where UAS attempt to become more similar to universities, thus pushing towards a unitary system. However, our analysis indicates that convergence is only one of the possible paths and that in countries like Finland and Switzerland, the specialisation of UAS towards a research profile focused on applied research and cooperation with regional actors is likely to maintain the binary divide. A specific rationale for these institutions oriented towards regional development, a coalition of interests with the economy, and a strong sense of collective action of UAS seem to be key factors to promote this development. Higher Education Policy (2010) 23, 295 – 316. doi:10.1057/hep.2010.11 Keywords: research; universities of applied sciences; binary systems; regional knowledge transfer; professional education

Introduction Higher education institutions outside the university sector — in English variably called universities of applied sciences (UAS), university colleges, institutes of technology, and polytechnics — are a very important part of most European higher education systems, where nowadays they account for a large share of student enrolments (see Taylor et al. (2008) for an overview). For matters of convenience, in this article they are named UAS or the UAS sector. When these institutions were created, mostly through mergers of existing professional and vocationally oriented schools and colleges, they were assigned a mission distinct from universities (Kyvik, 2004). In general, UAS should concentrate on providing professional and vocational education at bachelor

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

296

level, and in most countries, they were not supposed to engage in research. However, over time the binary divide has become increasingly blurred (Huisman and Kaiser, 2001; Taylor et al., 2008). Since the end of the UK polytechnic experiment, it is largely an open question whether other European countries will follow this path and introduce a unitary system (Teichler, 2008); recently the implementation of the Bologna process and the introduction of a common degree structure across the binary divide seems to have reinforced the convergence process (Teichler, 2008; Witte et al., 2008). Comparative analyses in fact display both tendencies, with the two sectors becoming closer in some countries (like Norway), while in other countries (like Switzerland) the binary system is relatively stable. Although the binary issue has drawn considerable attention in higher education studies, the development of research in UAS and its impact on their position in the higher education system, as well as on the structure of the system, has received much less attention. It has been acknowledged that the policy intention to exclude research from designated non-research institutions seldom succeeds over time (OECD, 1998), but there have been few in-depth studies of this process and of its implications, with the notable exceptions of Norway (Kyvik and Skodvin, 2003) and Switzerland (Lepori, 2008). It seems that in most cases the development of research has been interpreted as a part of the tendency of UAS to imitate universities, so-called academic drift (Burgess, 1972; Neave, 1979), and not as specific processes with their own dynamics. However, this interpretation oversees that there can be other reasons for the development of research in UAS, including the need for improving professional education and professional practice in occupations for which universities do not train people (Heggen et al., 2010), and the need for strengthening the role of UAS as regional knowledge providers (Jongbloed, 2010). Our hypothesis is that these needs might well develop in alternative paths of research in UAS, which will not necessarily strengthen the tendency towards a unitary system. The essential question is not any more whether these institutions should have the right to conduct research — this has been accepted in nearly all countries — but if these institutions will succeed in developing a distinct profile with emphasis on use-inspired research. The answer to this question is likely to profoundly influence the future position of UAS in higher education, as well as the configuration of the whole system. The increasing extent of research in the UAS sector and its possible effect on the higher education system explain the importance of studying these processes in a comparative perspective. This article addresses these issues based on studies of eight European countries — Belgium (Flanders and Francophone community), the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland — as part of a collaborative project on the research mission of UAS (Kyvik and Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

297

Lepori, 2010). The next section provides some background information on the higher education systems in these countries, whereas the subsequent section presents an overview of the development of research and on differences between countries. The penultimate section constitutes the core of the article, where we examine driving forces behind this development and discuss national variations in terms of the respective importance of two principles of organisation of higher education systems: hierarchical vs functional differentiation (Bleiklie, 2005). In the last section we discuss possible future scenarios and implications for higher education policies.

The Context: The Diverse Landscape of Binary Systems in European Countries All eight countries examined have formal binary systems established through a restructuring and upgrading of professional and vocational schools mostly in the 1980s and 1990s, constituted by a university sector and a number of nonuniversity institutions considered as part of higher education, but different from universities. They are named differently in the various countries, but UAS has become a common official English translation (see Table 1). Table 1 Overview of the eight considered countries and their non-university sector (2007) Country

National terms

English terms

No.

% first-year students (%)

Year created

Belgium

Hogescholen Hautes e´coles

University colleges

68

63

1970a

Czech Republic

Vysoke´ sˇkoly neuniverzitnı´ho typu

Non-university higher education institutions

43

25

1998

Finland

Ammattikorkeakoulu

Universities of applied sciences

30

60

1992

Germany

Fachhochschulen

Universities of applied sciences

170

32

1971

Ireland

Institutes of technology

Institutes of technology

14

30

1967–2000

The Netherlands Hogescholen

Universities of applied sciences

45

67

1986

Norway

Statlige høgskoler

University colleges

24

45

1994

Switzerland

Fachhochschulen Haute e´coles specialise´es

Universities of applied sciences

9

47

1995

a

Official recognition as higher education institutions outside universities. Czech Republic and Finland: data for the year 2005. Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

298

UAS are more numerous than universities in all countries but Switzerland, on average smaller and more distributed regionally; a relevant feature for the development of their research mission (Jongbloed, 2010). However, successive mergers brought the largest UAS to the size of medium-size universities. In most countries the largest UAS have between 10,000 and 15,000 students (the largest Dutch UAS having more than 30,000 students), while in all countries many UAS have less than 2,000 students. These wide differences are also a relevant factor to be considered when looking to research activities. Although the Bologna process has had a strong impact on the degree system in many European countries, there is a long way to go before a common system is implemented (Kehm and Teichler, 2006). Nevertheless, the bachelor degree is introduced as the terminal qualification in most professional programmes in the UAS sector, although with different length of study programmes. In Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Norway and Switzerland the dominant length of study is 3 years (in Ireland 3 or 4 years, in the Netherlands 4 years). In Norway, the university colleges recently have introduced a wide range of 2-year research-oriented master’s degrees in a selection of subjects. Such degrees also are offered by UAS in the Czech Republic, Germany, Belgium (1 or 2 years), Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, although on a smaller scale. The introduction of master’s degrees, largely pushed by the introduction of the Bologna model, is very relevant for our analysis, since in most cases these curricula require teachers with research experience or, at least, this is required by national accreditation agencies like in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Norway and Switzerland. Despite their common definition as binary systems, the countries considered largely span the continuum between the two sectors being clearly separated and quasi-unitary systems where common rules prevail, and where the borderline has become permeable. The clearest example of the first model is Switzerland (Lepori, 2008), where UAS are subject to a different law and ministry than universities, have their own funding system, as well as their own career system. Moreover, professional education is largely separated from general education from the secondary school level. In recent years, some integration tendencies have become visible, especially through the introduction of the Bologna model, and there are plans to have a single higher education act ruling the whole system (Perellon, 2003), but the slogan ‘equal but different’ still characterises the Swiss situation. Also Finland (Va¨limaa and Neuvonen-Rauhola, 2010), Germany (Kulicke and Stahlecker, 2010) and the Netherlands (de Weert and Leijnse, 2010) belong to this group of binary systems. Although to some extent the boundary with universities has become more permeable, there is a strong sense of difference and of collective action of the UAS sector, for example through the UAS Association in the Netherlands and the Conference of the Rectors of Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

299

Swiss UAS assuming a political role as spokespersons of the sector and developing joint actions. We consider Norway as the best example of the second model (Kyvik, 2009). Although university colleges are distinct from universities and have a specific mission in professional education and research, in 1995 the same career system as in universities was introduced, and in 1996 all public higher education institutions were regulated by a common act. Furthermore, a new incentive-based funding system, introduced in 2002, is basically the same for the two sectors. University colleges can also ask for accreditation of PhD programmes, thus breaking down one of the strongest divides between them and universities, and since 2004, they can request to be accredited as universities by fulfilling a number of criteria. Two of them attained this status in 2005 and 2007. Thus, the binary divide is nowadays a combination of functional differentiation (colleges having a different mission from that of universities) and hierarchy (new universities with few PhD programmes and weakly developed research), with the second principle gaining more importance over the last years. Similar tendencies are present in Ireland, where the Dublin Institute of Technology is legislatively positioned as a dual-sector institution with powers to award PhDs (1996), while other UAS have the right to award PhDs in selected circumstances (Hazelkorn and Moynihan, 2010a), and in Belgium with its strong policy of promoting institutional collaboration between university colleges and universities (Verhoeven, 2010). Finally, the remaining country in our sample, Czech Republic, displays the case where the non-university sector is uncomfortably sitting in the middle between the universities and the professional schools, with a precarious and marginal status in relation to the universities (Pabian, 2010).

A Research Mission, but what Kind of Research? In all considered countries, UAS have nowadays an explicit research mission or, at least, are allowed to develop research, even if there are large differences in the extent to which public policies promote this mandate with specific support measures. In some countries, like Germany (Kulicke and Stahlecker, 2010), this recognition has been the outcome of a long process, whereas in more recently established binary systems a research function was part of the original mandate, or even one of the main reasons for upgrading professional schools to higher education institutions, like in Switzerland (Lepori, 2008). Still, research constitutes a minor part of UAS budgets. Thus, while official reports and OECD reviews of tertiary education provide substantial information on education in UAS, there is a lack of information on their research activity. Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

300

The exceptions are the two countries where research in UAS is more developed, namely Norway and Switzerland where not only detailed statistical data are available, but in-depth studies have been conducted (Larsen and Kyvik, 2006; Lepori and Attar, 2006). Measuring the extent of research is also borne to a number of methodological issues related to the different interpretations of the concept of R&D in the UAS sector. Our data thus rely heavily on the knowledge and opinion of national experts and might not be fully comparable because the information is compiled from a diversity of sources. Nevertheless, we believe that this study provides a reliable picture of research in the countries included. In the following we will focus on four issues: the extent of research; the objectives and interpretations of the notion of research; the funding sources and their composition; and differences in research activity between individual institutions, study programmes and staff members.

A marginal actor in national research systems In the considered countries, UAS are at best a minor actor in the public research system and in many of them a marginal one. UAS account for less than 10% of total research expenditures in the public sector in all these countries (see Table 2). These figures should be compared with a share of firstyear enrolments in higher education ranging between 70% in the Netherlands and 30% in Germany. These data illustrate the large challenge UAS are faced with in terms of developing research in a context where universities and public research institutes have long established research traditions. In most countries, reports from UAS are full of complaints about lack of financial resources, shortage of human resources and discriminating behaviour by research allocation bodies which impede UAS in taking their full role as research institutions.

Table 2 R&D expenditures in the UAS sector 2007 Belgium Germany Ireland The Finland Norway Switzerland (2005) Netherlands R&D exp. million euro

57.7

674

38

82

100

157

217

% of R&D exp. In the public sectora

3%

4.1%

4.8%

2.3%

6.5%

7.2

9.5%

% funding from core budget

20%

45%

0%

19%

25%

79%

62%

a

Sum of the expenditures in the State, Higher Education and non-profit sector. Source: (Kyvik and Lepori, 2010). No data available on Czech Republic, but R&D expenditures are probably very low. Data for Finland and Germany refer to the year 2005.

Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

301

Available data indicate, however, a very strong growth in the research volume over the last years. Thus, in Switzerland, R&D expenditures in UAS increased from 30 million euro to 220 million euro from 2000 to 2007, in Belgium from 25 million euro to 57.7 million euro from 2001 to 2007 (of which 54.3 in Flanders), and in Finland from 32 million euro to 100 million euro from 2000 to 2005. It is very likely that this process will continue, partly because of political willingness to strengthen the research function, partly because of regional pressure and funding, and partly because of the influx of new staff qualified for and interested in doing research. The real question is however the level which will be achieved and the share of research in the total activities of these institutions (as compared with universities). Differences between countries are also very important. We can broadly distinguish between two groups, with Ireland and Germany finding themselves in the middle of these two groups. In the first group, which includes Finland, Norway and Switzerland, not only the share of research expenditure is higher, but research has become integrated into institutional strategies, and UAS are explicitly recognised as research actors at a national level. Moreover, some basic features of research in UAS in these countries and of their positioning in respect to universities can be identified. In Finland, Norway and Switzerland, UAS are increasingly facing issues of consolidation and of priority-setting, including the balance between regional commitments and participation in national and international research networks, the relationship between education and research, the development of a research profile, finding resources for research, and, finally, the systematic build-up of research competences and career issues of staff. The second group, which includes Belgium, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands, is still largely in an experimental phase: the research function of UAS is on the political agenda, but the extent of research is lower and confined to a relatively small segment of the staff. We do not believe that these differences reflect just evolutionary stages, but it seems that in some countries the environment and public policies have been more supportive of research in UAS than in others and lasting differences might then emerge. Research for which purposes? Even if the development of research in UAS can to some extent be explained through the imitation of universities (academic drift), some rationale which can justify the establishment of a new actor within the public research system is clearly required. Moreover, in all countries considered there have been attempts to specify the research mission of UAS to be different from universities with emphasis on applied research, practice-oriented research and development. In many cases, reference has been made to broader conceptions of scientific research and its social functions like knowledge society and mode 2 Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

302

research (Gibbons et al., 1994). The Swiss case, where the UAS research mission has been built on the distinction between basic and applied research and on the old linear model of knowledge production shows that these new conceptualisations of research are not indispensable for this purpose. Two objectives stand out: the role of UAS as regional knowledge providers and the role of research for improvement of the quality of professional education. Although both purposes are present in most of the countries considered, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and to some extent Germany so far have emphasised the first objective, whereas the role of research for improvement of professional training has been more prominent in Belgium and Norway. In the former countries, the main policy rationale for developing research in UAS has to be sought in the support to the regional economy and the improvement of knowledge transfer, especially towards small and medium enterprises. Being more customer-driven, research should be essentially funded through external contracts or incentive programmes for cooperation with private companies, a distinguishing feature of the Finnish and Swiss system. Accordingly, some concentration of research is required to achieve critical mass. Of course, there is some idea that once research units have been established, research will spread throughout the whole institution and benefit also education, but this is considered a further step. In the latter countries, the rationale for developing research is mostly sought in the improvement of the quality of professional education through enhanced research qualifications of teachers. Thus, research and research resources should be spread more evenly among the programmes in the institutions, either as a part of the core budget (Norway), or as specific allotments for curricula improvement (Belgium). Actually, in these countries official policy goals for UAS research also include regional relevance and knowledge transfer, but in practice the purpose to improve the quality of professional education has received more attention, in Norway (but not in Belgium) primarily because of the relatively weak position of engineering and technology programmes. As we shall discuss later, these conceptions influence not only the organisation of research in UAS, but also their position in the higher education system and the configuration of the binary divide overall. Looking for resources y implications for policy In most countries, the funding mechanism for UAS initially did not include resources for research, unlike universities where it was assumed that a substantial share of professors’ time should be devoted to their own research. In fact, excluding research from UAS activities was seen as a means to cope with the growth in student’s numbers without providing additional resources in the same proportion (OECD, 2005). Consequently, getting additional Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

303

resources has been a major issue at stake in the development of research and, at least when the extent of research exceeds some threshold, resources can quickly become a limiting factor and competition for resources between education and research can emerge (as in the case of Switzerland). Considering that UAS account for between 1/3 and 2/3 of the first-year enrolments in higher education, it is easy to understand the sheer size of financial issues borne by the development of research in these institutions. The different ways how this issue has been addressed are revealing of the policy intentions of the state concerning UAS research. In this sense, funding instruments embed norms and conceptions on the research mission of UAS (as well as on their relationships and autonomy from the state) and thus have a signalling function to social actors (Lascoumes and Le Gales, 2000). At the same time, given the centrality of resources, they have strong practical implications for the development of research and for the construction of a stable position of these actors in the research funding system. Table 3 presents an overview of the different countries considering three characteristics: the share of resources from the core budget of these institutions, the role of specific (ring-fenced) support measures for UAS research, and the importance and composition of third-party funding. Although the data are incomplete and not fully reliable, some patterns do emerge. The first is that in the majority of the countries considered, the development of the research has been largely funded through ring-fenced programmes: these provide the main part of research funding in the Netherlands (lectorate programme) and Flanders (academisation programme) and account for a significant share in Ireland, Germany and Finland. In Switzerland specific programmes were very important in the early phases, but have been reduced more recently. It is only in the Czech Republic and Norway where these schemes are not existent or play limited roles. Moreover, these programmes have been an explicit tool to drive UAS research in specific directions and organisational forms, like promoting academisation of curricula (Belgium), the establishment of a lectorate programme (Netherlands) or cooperation with SMEs (Switzerland). The second pattern is that in most cases the UAS core budget has no specific research component and is essentially calculated on the basis of the number of students. Exceptions are Norway, where UAS have a similar allocation model as universities with a research component based on performance indicators; Switzerland, with a specific research core budget; and Germany, where it is assumed that UAS teachers can spend some of their time on research (but this is limited because of a much greater number of teaching hours than for university professors). The third pattern are strong differences in the ability of UAS to acquire project funding outside ring-fenced schemes, as well as strong differences in the Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Core funding for research

No specific allocation

No specific allocation

No specific allocation

No specific allocation

No specific allocation, but core budget is joint for education and research

A specific research allocation based on performance indicators (but with lower share than universities)

Country

Belgium

Czech republic

Ireland

the Netherlands

Germany

Norway

Table 3 Main features of research funding models 2007

Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Of relatively little significance

Significant: a specific program of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research, as well as some regional programmes

Very important: the lectorate programme covers about half of the R&D expenditures of UAS

Important: the Technology Sector Research programme accounts for about 1/3 of the total funding volume

no

Specific credits to get accreditation of curricula as based on scientific research (‘academisation’ credits) are a major source of funding in the Flemish community

Specific support measures and programmes

Mostly research council and ministry contracts. Low level if compared to overall research expenditures

Mostly private funding and ministry contracts

The Regional Action and Action for Knowledge Circulation Program for the cooperation with private companies

Funding from Enterprise Ireland and the Programme for Research in Third-level institutions

Very limited

Mostly from sectoral ministries

Third-party funding

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

304

Some limited earmarked funding in the Polytechnics performance contracts

Specific funding from Cantons, as well as dedicated resources from the federal state

Finland

Switzerland

Source: (Lepori, 2010).

Core funding for research

Country

Table 3 (Continued)

Specific support measures of the Swiss Innovation Agency have been very important in the early development phase, discontinued yet (except a specific programme for practice-oriented research in social sciences managed by the Swiss National Science Foundation)

Significant: project funding for specific research activities set in performance contracts

Specific support measures and programmes

Very important: UAS are very strong in establishing contracts with the Swiss Innovation Agency and developing private contracts

Very important: main source are EU structural programmes

Third-party funding

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

305

Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

306

composition of these sources: in Finland and Switzerland, UAS have developed a strong position in specific segments (European structural funds, respectively Swiss Innovation Agency projects and contracts from private companies); in the other countries these are weak competitors on most funding schemes, including the case of Norway despite the rather high level of R&D expenditures from the core budget. In all countries, UAS display a much stronger affinity to funding from ministries, private companies and innovation agencies rather than from research councils and European programmes, a pattern which corresponds to the regional and applied orientation of their research (the high share of the Norwegian research council reflects its portfolio which also includes innovation measures, Slipersaeter et al., 2007). A very differentiated internal landscape All national case studies document large differences in research activity within the UAS sector between institutions, programmes and individual staff members. This raises the relevant question, to what extent is it justified to speak of research development in the whole sector? Firstly, in some countries large differences exist between individual UAS, with some of them not only having a much higher research activity (like in Belgium and Ireland), but some UAS also strive to achieve university status. Typical cases are the Dublin Institute of Technology and Waterford Institute of Technology (Hazelkorn and Moynihan, 2010 a, b), as well as the two Norwegian university colleges that recently received university accreditation (Kyvik and Larsen, 2010). In countries like Finland, the Netherlands and Switzerland there is a stronger sense of collective development of UAS-specific research activities according to the notion ‘equal but different’ to universities. In these countries, UAS associations or rectors’ conferences took an active role in developing joint objectives and strategies for research, or even took a role in allocating research funding (like in the Netherlands). Of course, the extent of research is likely to be different among individual UAS, but what matters here is this collective understanding of their research mission, which is likely to have profound influences on the resulting system configuration. Secondly, the available data for some countries show a strong concentration of research in engineering and technology programmes. This is the case in Belgium and Germany, where engineering accounts for half of the research volume; for Switzerland the share of R&D expenditure in UAS varies from 25% in technology to less than 5% in some social science domains. On the other hand, in Norway half of the R&D expenditure is in social science programmes, which accounts for a large share of students, an expected outcome given the stronger link between education and research. The prevalence of engineering and technology in the former countries is likely to Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

307

reflect the orientation to application and knowledge transfer to SMEs. This internal differentiation raises the question to what extent UAS might be able to develop a single concept and research strategy when faced with selective requests from their environment. For instance, the main Swiss economic association (Economiesuisse) stated that research in UAS should be developed only in technical domains. Unlike the university sector, mergers and reorganisation have been common in the UAS sector; one cannot exclude that these differences will lead to new institutional configurations, such as splitting research-strong departments from the rest of these institutions. Thirdly, research activity varies enormously between individual staff members. In most of the countries, research is strongly concentrated among relatively few people. This pattern is to be expected since in all countries UAS have a large stock of teachers with little or no research competence (Hazelkorn and Moynihan, 2010 a, b). The central issue concerns, however, the future development; will this lead to a dual career structure, with research professors and senior research staff concentrated in research units alongside a large number of lecturers (with no research competence)? Or will research activities progressively diffuse throughout the whole organisational and personnel structure? The same issues are reproduced at the organisational level where UAS seem to have taken different routes in the integration of research: the extreme case is institutions where most research activity is concentrated in a single centre (see the example of Lahti UAS in Finland, Va¨limaa and Neuvonen-Rauhola, 2010). In many countries the approach of creating distinct research units inside institutions or departments prevails (Switzerland being a typical case), whereas in other countries this varies much between individual UAS (like in Norway). Of course, one can find good arguments for both strategies. Cumulative effects in research are likely to push in the first direction, since the units with research tradition will be able to attract more qualified personnel and third-party funding. At the same time, normative pressures based on principles of distributional justice are more likely to push towards diffusion of research, as well as to avoid dual internal careers and to limit internal differences among staff. It is likely that the balance between these two alternatives will critically depend on national environments, for example the degree of competitiveness for research funding where customer-driven models will generate stronger internal differentiation, but also on the strength of the UAS themselves as strategic actors able to promote a relatively unitary research culture throughout the institution.

Systems Configurations and Driving Forces Traditionally, the development of research in this sector has been interpreted as a case of academic drift, where UAS try to imitate research universities. Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

308

As shown by the UK case, this would eventually lead to a unitary system where these institutions end up in the lower tier of the system in terms of academic reputation and extent of research. However, the information collected in this study indicates that this is not the only possible path and that the development of research in the non-university sector is subject to contrasting forces of integration in a vertical hierarchy and of functional specialisation as in the case of education (Bleiklie, 2005, 2008). There are some good arguments why at the system level we expect most countries to find some balance between functional specialisation and hierarchy as organising principles for their higher education systems (Bleiklie, 2005). Norms of research are too strongly related to university and academic life that UAS can afford developing their own concept independently of it. Thus a sharp distinction would be difficult to legitimate, even if some redefinition and broadening of the notion of research is found in all considered countries. Moreover, today’s approaches to research policies are largely based on introducing funding instruments for different types of research and then let performers compete and develop their own specialisation, rather than deciding centrally the work division between sectors and providing them with separated resources. In this perspective specific funding instruments for UAS research can be justified only as temporary measures to build research capacity. On the other hand integrating UAS in the university system would strongly increase the vertical stratification of the whole system and require more selective funding models to avoid spreading out resources and weakening the established research universities, as demonstrated by the introduction of the Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom at the same time when the Polytechnics were granted university status (Stiles, 2000). Not only would this make the development of research in UAS more difficult, it would also imply a shift from equalitarian to hierarchical norms for universities to a degree probably not yet acceptable in most continental European countries. National models between hierarchy and functional differentiation Based on this distinction, we can broadly divide the countries in our sample into those where functional differentiation prevails and those where integration with the university sector is more relevant. At one extreme, we would consider Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands where the research mission of UAS is strongly targeted to regional development and SMEs, thus largely complementary to universities. In these countries, the governments have introduced specific schemes to support the development of UAS research through performance contracts (Finland), through the Swiss Innovation Agency (Switzerland), and through a specific lectorate programme (the Netherlands). This model has also relevant Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

309

strategic and practical implications. Firstly, it is not an explicit goal for UAS to achieve university status. Also, UAS strive to occupy specific niches and functions in the research system not well covered by universities, like cooperation with SMEs. The availability of these niches depends also on contextual factors. Thus, Swiss UAS were strongly favoured by the fact that in this country technological research is concentrated in the two Federal Institutes of Technology which have a strong international focus. Finally, there is an effort to develop specific career structures for UAS, as displayed by the cases of the Netherlands with the lectorate and Switzerland — where UAS nominate UAS professors with distinct qualifications from those of university professors. Since the functions are different, there are no strong reasons to harmonise legal requirements and funding systems, even though there might be a single higher education act, like in the Netherlands. The strength of this model is to allow UAS to build a specific profile which protects them also from competition from the universities, as shown by the Finnish and Swiss cases. The relevant issue is how to deal with competition between types of institutions for the same resources (with different starting conditions) and how to deal with overlaps in research profiles between the two sectors, since no clear-cut distinction is possible. At the other extreme, we find countries where university status and research constitute the main reference also for UAS. This is expressed by the creation of accreditation mechanisms, where UAS can become universities by satisfying certain requirements (Norway, the Czech Republic) and the set-up of similar career structures and funding mechanisms as universities (Norway). Thus, the difference between universities and UAS concerning research is a matter of degree — having fewer professors and fewer resources. In normative terms, while the first model builds on an image of university research as being directed towards fundamental research and separated from practice, this model is based on a broader vision where the diversity and complexities of the university world is acknowledged — including large areas of professional education and applied research and the impossibility of drawing a clear separation between basic and applied research. While integrating in the university world, this plurality still leaves UAS the opportunity to stress their specific role focused on regional development and professional education, however as a declination of the overall academic value system rather than in opposition to it. The national case studies display that in the countries conforming to this model — Norway, Ireland and the Czech Republic — UAS tend to become the little brother of universities, with few possibilities of achieving a similar share of research. However, their fate depends largely on the overall governance of higher education. Where public policies strongly support stratification among universities, UAS tend to end in the lower tail with limited possibilities of Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

310

improvement (like for the UK polytechnics; Stiles, 2000). In countries with more equalitarian approaches, where some competition is introduced, but there is still a logic of giving all institutions a chance to become a research university, more mixing between the two groups might occur in the long run. The Belgian case is very specific in this context since the research strategy of UAS is largely based on the creation of formal partnerships with universities, especially in Flanders through the establishment of associations between UAS and universities. This has been motivated by the government as a policy to help UAS to meet the accreditation criteria for their academic educational stream, but can have wider implications given the imbalance between the partners. Thus, transferring academic curricula and research from UAS to universities and merging parts of UAS into universities could be an outcome (as explicitly argued by the university rectors in the Flemish community; Verhoeven, 2010). If internal differences are too large, applying accreditation criteria to activities (programmes or research activities) instead of to institutions might well result in moving these activities to different institutions rather than reforming the whole institution.

Public policies and beyond: driving forces and actors What are the driving forces behind these developments and the factors explaining the differences between countries? The theory of academic drift emphasised the key role of UAS themselves and of their staff in this respect, and largely explained their behaviour in terms of their desire to raise their status, respectively of practical professions striving to get the same status as the academic professions (see Kyvik, 2009). Hence, the state assumes largely a reactive role of recognising the development of research and adapting correspondingly its policies towards the non-university sector. As a result, most policy measures resulted in granting to UAS some of the rights and conditions of universities, for example the right to use core funding for research, and in the UK case, to rename polytechnics as universities (Pratt, 1997). However, in countries like Switzerland and Finland, the state took a proactive role, not only providing most of the resources for research through specific schemes, but also using these measures to orient research activities in a specific direction. Thus, in these countries a rationale for a specific role of UAS in research has been elaborated by the state, either at the creation of the non-university sector (Switzerland) or few years after (Finland) and this rationale has been made credible and promoted through specific funding schemes. Of course, the success of these measures largely depended on the ability to mobilise the UAS themselves in the same direction, as demonstrated Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

311

by the highly successful Swiss case (Lepori, 2008). In a resource-dependency approach, this can be readily explained: being largely dependent on the specific support measures (with little access to general research funding) and lacking their own research culture, these institutions are very sensitive to public policies pushing them towards a different profile than universities. Which factors would then explain the different attitudes and interventions of the state among the considered countries? While this has not been systematically investigated in our work, at least some hypotheses on explaining factors might be advanced. A first relevant factor is clearly the steering mode of higher education. We can distinguish here between countries which basically rely on market forces to coordinate higher education and those where more direct steering by the state to reach social and political goals is deemed necessary and thus provides more ground for an active role of the state in shaping UAS research. Although most of the countries in our sample belong to the second group, Norway and the Czech Republic are those which have moved furthest in introducing the market-based approach. A second, related factor is the importance of regional development as a political goal, which tends to drive towards a more distributed higher education system and favour the establishment of UAS as regional knowledge providers, a case in point especially in Switzerland and Finland. The need for these providers might also be related to the economic structure of the country and the importance of SMEs in economic development and to the perceived limitations of the university sector (too strong an orientation towards basic research and cooperation with multinational companies in Switzerland). A third relevant factor is the strength of the binary divide. As the Dutch case shows, it is easier to promote a specific research profile of UAS when this sector is distinct and its institutions share a sense of collective action rather than in a situation where the borders have become more permeable and some UAS see the opportunity of becoming universities (like in Ireland and Norway). This is also related to the time difference between the creation of the non-university sector and the establishment of a research mission. UAS in countries where the two processes occurred more or less simultaneously (like Switzerland or Finland) clearly had more favourable conditions than those where a research mission was introduced later for different reasons: firstly, the binary divide was clearer and thus provided a better basis for a specific research mission; secondly, in the build-up phase of UAS the state was more ready to provide support and additional funding; thirdly, it was easier to integrate research early in the mission of UAS than to add it later on, with all required changes in identity, organisation, personnel, etc. Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

312

Diversity and differentiation: an evolutionary perspective on research profiles Our study provides some interesting results on the ability of different steering modes of higher education to promote differentiation of research profiles of higher education institutions; this relates to a lasting debate in higher education studies, whether the State or the market is better able to steer diversity in higher education, a debate which, however, has focused until now essentially on the provision of education (Meek et al., 1996; Meek, 2000). What emerges from the countries we considered — and especially from those which successfully built specific profiles for UAS, like Finland and Switzerland — is that the critical choice lies rather in a careful combination of regulatory intervention and market incentives, by building on the complementarity between institutional funding and third-party funding. Namely, creating strong competition for institutional funding through performancebased criteria valid for all HEI clearly promotes the convergence of research profiles and hierarchisation of the system, as shown by the British case. Competition for third-party funding is more compatible with diversity of research profiles since in most European countries project funding is itself differentiated by missions and agencies (Lepori et al., 2007) and thus would open, at least in principle, room for the UAS targeting specific funding markets, like innovation agencies and private companies instead of academicoriented research councils. However, building up these profiles requires suitable incentives at the institutional level which push individuals and research groups to target specific funding sources rather than others. This includes normative pressure through the definition of a specific research mission for UAS, but also providing complementary institutional funding largely related to success in the acquisition of third-party funds since these usually do not cover full research costs. Secondly, while, once established, these profiles are likely to be stable on their own since cumulative effects provide incentives to institutions (and their research groups) to keep their specialisation, in the build-up phase the role of the State is essential to lower entry barriers and costs for a specific funding source. What is critical in terms of a good combination of regulation and market is that these build-up schemes develop profiles which are required also in the open (competitive) market for third-party funding and thus can be sustained also after the end of the ring-fenced schemes for UAS. The Swiss case, where UAS have been consequently supported to build a profile matching the needs of the Swiss Innovation Agency, is a good example of this approach. These cursory remarks suggest the debate should move from the opposition between direct regulation and market steering towards a more differentiated view, looking to complementarities between different institutional arrangements, considering the interplay between institutional-level and research Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

313

groups level and taking into account evolutionary effects and the importance of timing in the different regulatory interventions.

Conclusions: Future Scenarios and Policy Implications Much of the literature on higher education has discussed whether the binary divide will be continued, or whether most European higher education systems will converge towards the unitary model, following the path of United Kingdom (see, e.g., Taylor et al., 2008). However, we suggest that current differentiation patterns in higher education are more complex than just the binary divide (Bleiklie, 2008), and that legal distinctions between types of institutions are just a component of it (yet a very important one for its normative and practical consequences). Instead of evolving towards a unitary system, European higher education systems might develop different forms of differentiation and softer and more permeable forms of divides, as displayed for example by the Norwegian case (Kyvik, 2009). In this context, the emergence of research as a generally accepted component of the mission of UAS implies a profound redefinition of the binary divide and perhaps is more likely to lead to a reconfiguration of it rather than to convergence towards a unitary system. Our study shows that this is closely related to the specific features of research and education. In education, once it has been accepted that differences between general and professional curricula are of degree and not of category and switching possibilities between the two tracks have been created — largely as an outcome of the Bologna process — there are no strong reasons in considering the institutions delivering these degrees as belonging to different categories. Reputational differences in education (at least at bachelor level) are small enough to be handled through quality evaluations and student’s choice, but having distinct rules for the two sectors (for example different funding rates) is not mandatory (even if this would be a possible option). On the contrary, differences between the two sectors in the extent of research, research competence, and research output are very large. To integrate in this phase universities and UAS in a single sector with the same rules, one needs firstly to accept that such large differences between individual institutions are acceptable; secondly, suitable evaluation mechanisms allowing to measure these differences have to be introduced; and thirdly, the funding allocation system needs to be selective, based on hierarchy to avoid spreading out resources (in a context where there is limited room for providing additional resources for research). The extent of these changes — related to the extent of differences in research — is likely to exceed what is acceptable in most continental European countries and would have a very strong impact on the university sector itself, weakening the position of regional universities. Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

314

Moreover, it could well impair the goal of developing a new research actor letting UAS fall in the lower tail of the university system, as experienced by most former UK polytechnics. Our comparative analysis shows that the real choice is between what we would call soft and hard differentiation. With the former, we mean having most rules common in the two sectors, for example concerning funding, careers, accreditation, but still keeping the formal distinction and thus leaving room for some differentiation concerning research and avoiding putting all institutions on the same hierarchical scale. Borderline cases of UAS which develop a stronger research basis are handled through accreditation to universities, thus effectively screening out from the UAS category those who do not correspond to its definition as institutions with lower research activities. Permeability between the two sectors is thus essential to keep stable the distinction between the two categories. With hard differentiation, we mean UAS developing collectively a specific research mission, perceived as different from universities and accepted both by the state and by social actors, which justifies also different rules and funding mechanisms. The research mission becomes then the strongest rationale for the binary divide in a time when the educational mission cannot be used for this purpose. Our work shows that this model critically depends on a strong action of the State to legitimate the specific UAS research mission and to promote it in its early phases. We provide also some evidence that, while some blurring and opening happens after some time, the specific UAS profile might be stable in the long run even without keeping specific funding mechanisms, as it becomes institutionalised in shared norms and in stable relationships between funding agencies, UAS and regional actors. In a sense, while it is certainly true that all higher education systems are subject at the same time to contrasting forces of hierarchisation and of functional differentiation (Bleiklie, 2008), there are specific bifurcation points where the balance between these forces and the choices made can have a lasting structural effect on the system configuration. According to our study, the early phase of the establishment of a research mission in UAS is likely to be one of them.

Acknowledgments The authors wish particularly to thank the researchers who participated in the joint project on research in universities of applied sciences: Ben Jongbloed, Egbert de Weert and Frans Leijnse (Netherlands), Kristin Heggen, Berit Karseth and Ingvild Marheim Larsen (Norway), Ellen Hazelkorn and Amanda Moynihan (Ireland), Jef Verhoeven (Belgium), Petr Pabian (Czech Republic), Jussi Va¨limaa and Marja-Liisa Neuvonen-Rauhola (Finland), Marianne Kulicke and Thomas Stahlecker (Germany). Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

315

References Bleiklie, I. (2005) ‘Organizing higher education in a knowledge society’, Higher Education 49: 31–59. Bleiklie, I. (2008) ‘Reform Policies, Change and the Framing of Excellence’, Paper presented at the 21st CHER Annual Conference, Pavia, September. Burgess, T. (1972) The Shape of Higher Education, London: Cornmarket Press. de Weert, E. and Leijnse, F. (2010) ‘Practice-oriented Research: The Extended Function of Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hazelkorn, E. and Moynihan, A. (2010a) ‘Ireland. The Challenges of Building Research in a Binary Higher Education Culture’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Hazelkorn, E. and Moynihan, A. (2010b) ‘Transforming Academic Practice: Human Resource Challenges’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Heggen, K., Karseth, B. and Kyvik, S. (2010) ‘The Relevance of Research for the Improvement of Education and Professional Practice’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Huisman, J. and Kaiser, F. (eds.) (2001) Fixed and Fuzzy Boundaries in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of (Binary) Structures in Nine Countries, The Hague: Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps- en Technologiebeleid. Jongbloed, B. (2010) ‘The Regional Relevance of Research in Universities of Applied Sciences’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Kehm, B. and Teichler, U. (2006) ‘Which direction for bachelor and master programmes? A stocktaking of The Bologna process’, Tertiary Education and Management 12: 269–282. Kulicke, M. and Stahlecker, T. (2010) ‘The Role of Research in German Universities of Applied Sciences’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Kyvik, S. (2004) ‘Structural changes in higher education systems in Western Europe’, Higher Education in Europe 29: 393–409. Kyvik, S. (2009) The Dynamics of Change in Higher Education. Expansion and Contraction in an Organisational Field, Dordrecht: Springer. Kyvik, S. and Larsen, I.M. (2010) ‘Research in Norwegian University Colleges’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Kyvik, S. and Lepori, B. (eds.) (2010) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Kyvik, S. and Skodvin, O.J. (2003) ‘Research in the non-university higher education sector — Tensions and dilemmas’, Higher Education 45: 203–222. Larsen, I.M. and Kyvik, S. (2006) 12 a˚r etter høgskolereformen. En statusrapport om FOU ved statlige høgskoler, Oslo: NIFU STEP. Lascoumes, P. and Le Gales, P. (2000) ‘Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments — from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation’, Governance 20: 1–21. Lepori, B. (2008) ‘Research in non-university higher education institutions. The case of the Swiss universities of applied sciences’, Higher Education 56(1): 45–58. Higher Education Policy 2010 23

Benedetto Lepori and Svein Kyvik Research Mission of UAS and the Future Configuration of Higher Education Systems in Europe

316 Lepori, B. (2010) ‘Funding for Which Mission? Changes and Ambiguities in the Funding of UAS and their Research Activities’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Lepori, B. and Attar, L. (2006) Research Strategies and Framework Conditions for Research in Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences, Lugano: KTI/CTI. Lepori, B., Dinges, M., Reale, E., Slipersaeter, S., Theves, J. and Van den Besselaar, P. (2007) ‘Comparing the evolution of national research policies: What patterns of change?’ Science and Public Policy 34: 372–388. Meek, V.L. (2000) ‘Diversity and marketisation of higher education: Incompatible concepts?’ Higher Education Policy 13: 23–39. Meek, V.L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O. and Rinne., R. (1996) The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education, New York: International Association of Universities and Elsevier Science Ltd. Neave, G. (1979) ‘Academic drift: Some views from Europe’, Studies in Higher Education 4: 143–159. OECD. (1998) Redefining Tertiary Education, Paris: OECD. OECD. (2005) ‘Alternatives to University revisited’, Education Policy Analysis 2005, Paris: OECD, pp. 15–45. Pabian, P. (2010) ‘Czech Republic. Research Required But Not Supported’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Perellon, J.F. (2003) ‘The creation of a vocational sector in Swiss higher education: Balancing trends of system differentiation and integration’, European Journal of Education 38: 357–370. Pratt, J. (1997) The Polytechnic Experiment 1965–1992, London: The Society for Research into Higher Education. Slipersaeter, S., Lepori, B. and Dinges, M. (2007) ‘Between policy and science: Research councils’ responsiveness in Austria, Norway and Switzerland’, Science and Public Policy 34(6): 401–416. Stiles, D. (2000) ‘Higher education funding patterns since 1990: A new perspective’, Public Money and Management 20(4): 51–57. Taylor, J.S., Ferreira, J.B., Machado, M.L. and Santiago, R. (eds.) (2008) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, Dordrecht: Springer. Teichler, U. (2008) ‘The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities? in J.S. Taylor, J.B Ferreira, M.L. Machado and R. Santiago (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–13. Va¨limaa, J. and Neuvonen-Rauhola, M.L. (2010) ‘ ‘‘We are a Training and Development Organisation’’ — Research and Development in Finnish Polytechnics’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Verhoeven, J.C. (2010) ‘Research in University Colleges in Belgium’, in S. Kyvik and B. Lepori (eds.) The Research Mission of Higher Education Institutions Outside the University Sector, Dordrecht: Springer. Witte, J., van der Wende, M. and Huisman, J. (2008) ‘Blurring boundaries: How the Bologna process changes the relationship between university and non-university higher education in Germany, the Netherlands and France’, Studies in Higher Education 33: 217–231.

Higher Education Policy 2010 23