Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 2018, 543–552

doi: 10.1093/scipol/scx082
Advance Access Publication Date: 22 November 2017
Article

Centres of Excellence and Capacity Building:

from Strategy to Impact
Tomas Hellström*
Lund University School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund 221 00, Sweden

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020

*Corresponding author. Email: tomas.hellstrom@fek.lu.se

Abstract
This article reports on a Small-N study of Centre of Excellence (CoE) schemes that cover a wide var-
iety of such schemes. The purpose is to map the ways in which strategic aims of CoE schemes re-
late to impacts and capacity development, and the role played by institutional arrangements such
as selection, funding, evaluation, and governance in translating strategy into capacity development
and other impacts. Altogether 12 CoE schemes from six countries were analysed in terms of strat-
egy, governance, and impact or capacity building. Findings suggest that while CoE schemes tend
to focus on capacity outcomes viz. network stimulation, skills development, and transfer of expert-
ise, the most important outcome is the ‘meta-capacity’ involved in formulating and carrying out
policy and research in new ways, developing professionalization in the academic workforce and
enabling organizations such as universities to set their own priorities and engage in professional
research governance.
Key words: centres of excellence; capacity; governance; impact.

1. Introduction
Centres of Excellence (CoEs) have become an important part of the
policy mix for realizing higher education and research (HER) sector
goals, all over the world. Some authors (e.g. Beerkens 2009) even
speak of an emerging ‘global model’ for CoEs; that is a convergence
on research topics, processes, and funding systems for this type of in-
strument. There is no doubt, and the present study supports this ob-
servation, that the character of their organization, their strategic
function in the research policy landscape—that is what services they
are expected to provide—and their governance, have become easily
recognizable across countries and national policy systems as being
of one and the same family. Clearly, no one policy instrument has
unlimited applicability in any context, and the rapid formalization
of the CoE instrument should therefore call for pause for those pol-
icy makers who believe that their research system represents unique
or complex challenges to which readymade solutions are not easily
transferable.
The CoEs currently in operation do tend toward certain topics,
e.g. nanotechnology, information technology, biomedical research,
etc., topics that are typically dependent on a highly skilled academic
workforce, advanced research infrastructure, and a mature high-
tech industrial system on the national level. On the other hand, it
makes perfect sense to conceive of CoEs as a topic neutral instru-
ment, not as a vehicle for a particular field of research, but as a ve-
hicle for research per se. When viewed in this way, as simply an
institutional choice for how research—any research—could be
funded, other benefits come into view. For instance, some authors
argue that CoEs have the ability to revitalize the academic system by
providing platforms for interdisciplinarity, for university-industry
and triple-helix relations not easily accommodated in the faculties,
that they promote bottom-up priority setting among scholars and
universities, and attract talent (Hellström 2011; Langfeldt et al.
2015; Borlaug 2016). They may overcome capability gaps in re-
search (through providing critical mass) as well as ‘credibility gaps’
vis-à-vis policy makers and industry, by representing a clearly dis-
cernible cooperative partner in academe for those external stake-
holders (Schiller and Brimble 2009).
This article asks the question: what is the relationship between
CoE schemes and capacity building in the HER system, across a di-
versity of countries and scheme types? If there indeed is a set of least
common denominators for the CoE instrument across a number of
divergent national research systems, in what ways do these national
schemes realize capacities of the more general institutional kind dis-
cussed above? A detailed answer to this question can help in
evaluating to what extent the CoE instrument is worthwhile as a
generalized tool for science policy makers in countries that seek such
benefits, and point to aspects of their strategy and implementation
that need special adaptation. The question posed here relates specif-
ically to the ways in which CoEs realize capacity in various institu-
tional ways, that is, not only through their outputs but also through
the way they are set up, i.e. through their processes and governance
systems. As will be clear, capacity impacts are here conceived of in a
broad sense, as relevant to any country regardless of level of
development.

C The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press.

V
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact
journals.permissions@oup.com 543
544
In order to achieve this, the present article reports on a qualita-
tive Small-N study involving six countries currently employing the
CoE instrument, and altogether 12 CoE schemes. Rather than a con-
trasting comparison of schemes in terms of country-level variables,
the common aspects of the schemes are analysed based on three
common types, using the dimensions of strategic aims, governance
mechanisms, and impacts/capacity building, in order to capture crit-
ical aspects of their contribution to capacity building. In what fol-
lows some previous research on CoEs and capacity will be
presented, secondly a methodological section where the analytical
model guiding this study will be put forth. Finally, a synthetic pres-
entation of the results and some conclusions on the basis of these
will be provided.
2. CoEs and capacity building
2.1 What are CoEs?
CoEs can be described as organizational environments that strive
for, and succeed in, developing high standards of conduct in a field
of research, innovation, or learning. They are often highly attractive
to research and development (R&D) investments and talent in their
field, and two common pillars of excellence in this regard tend to
recur namely prioritization and concentration in terms of focus and
resources (Kitagawa 2010). Therefore, they possess the ability to ab-
sorb and generate new knowledge. Ideally, they would distribute
and utilize this new knowledge in the form of new capacity in their
field, be it research results, innovations, or talent. CoEs are typically
geographically concentrated and focused on high potential/growth
areas in science and industry, but they may also be virtual/distrib-
uted and consist of a network of co-operative partners with a co-
ordinating centre (Fischer et al. 2001; Luukkonen et al. 2006).
In terms of size, according to the operational definitions employed
by some funders, CoEs can be anywhere from the local R&D group
up to regional-level semi-cohesive triple-helix networks consisting of
hundreds of researchers (Hellström 2011).
Most CoE schemes converge on a number of academic and
socio-economic goals, a common division being that between
schemes that are largely intended to generate scientific excellence,
those whose purpose it is to stimulate technological innovation in
some sector, and those with more general social objectives including
policy support or regional development (Aksnes et al. 2012;
Langfeldt et al. 2015). In addition, some CoEs are geared towards
educational or learning goals. These are normally dealt with separ-
ately, but are increasingly part of the CoE framework. Regardless of
strategic orientation all CoEs, by definition, have in common some
notion of excellence, and particular expectations that are associated
with that label in terms of evaluation and conduct. These typically
involve high research quality and productivity, resource attraction
and concentration, international visibility and attractiveness (includ-
ing staff recruitment), and organizational robustness (good govern-
ance) (Orr et al. 2011; Aksnes et al. 2012; Hellström 2012; Borlaug
2016). The fulfilment of these criteria is expected to further the stra-
tegic goals, be they in science, innovation, or other social impacts.
2.2 Excellence and organization
The CoE concept combines a notion of quality (excellence) with an
organizational dimension, and we must therefore ask ourselves:
what organizational characteristics should be associated with excel-
lence? Balderston (1995) suggests that excellence is present in an
academic organization to the extent that it satisfies some conditions
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4
for long-term viability, preferably realized via a sound governance
structure that ensures autonomy and self-direction and, in addition
to this, a broadly accepted commitment to academic values.
The role of autonomy and academic values espoused here implies, to
some extent, the idea that peer judgment is key to establishing what
is excellent: quality is established in ‘the province of knowledgeable
peers in [a] field’ (352). This more traditional notion of excellence
emphasizes the ability to attract academic ‘stars’, high levels of re-
cruitment selectivity, and mainly collegial consultation over resource
allocation (Hollingsworth and Hollingsworth 2000). It is in fact
(as we will see) widely espoused in current CoE schemes; however, it
does not provide the whole picture. Balderston himself recognizes
the trade-offs necessary to establish excellence milieus in academic
settings and associated risks on the institutional level. One is the risk
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020
that funders and universities over-invest in narrow, basic projects
with long gestation periods, the negative outcome of which may
threaten the ability of an institution to survive. Another is whether
resource concentration of this kind is compatible with other values
of inquiry, either those that relate to more ‘democratic’ and equit-
able goals such as local engagement and social improvements, or
those that relate to the fact that it may be socially as well as cogni-
tively unacceptable to move scarce resources to a very few high
performers in the research system, thereby sacrificing epistemic di-
versity [cf. Hicks and Katz (2011) for a discussion of ‘inequality
aversion’ among funders].
Balderston’s suggestions for organizational integration of excel-
lence emphasize the need to combine a collegial rationale for excel-
lence with that of institutional viability. The following criteria reflect
these broader notions of excellence [see also Hemlin et al. (2004) for
an elaboration of some of these qualities]:
a. compatibility of aims between the centre and its institutional
context,
b. effectiveness and mutual reinforcement of programmes at that
location or in the broad institutional context of the centre,
c. acceptability to the centre’s most important constituencies.
These aspects are brought forward to indicate how CoEs, while
being defined primarily by the excellence predicate, must be con-
ceived as social activities and related to broader social processes in-
side and outside of science proper. In a study of creative research
groups in nanotechnology and genetics, Heinze et al. (2009) in fact
found that extra-mural collaborations play an even greater role in
research excellence than has been assumed previously. Successful
groups draw on larger collaborative networks, provide a link be-
tween disjointed peers and stakeholders, and work under conditions
that reflect multi- and transdisciplinary contacts. These authors
point out that a scientific actor who operates at the intersection of a
diversity of research groups may generate more original research by
having a greater variety of perspectives and knowledge available
(e.g. Burt 2004).
2.3 Excellence and funding
In support of the discussion on organizational characteristics above,
Laudel (2006) finds that diversity of the funding opportunities, large
epistemic room for manoeuvre, and availability of collaborators
promotes resource acquisition for research programmes and centres,
along with the more traditional factors such as the quality of the
programme’s scientists, e.g. significance, continuity, and amount of
prior research, reputation of applicants, and proposal quality
(see also Hornbostel 2001). These studies open up the excellence
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4 545

concept by providing evidence that research funding, even trad-
itional council funding, does not depend on a narrow conceptualiza-
tion of research excellence but on the broader social epistemic
ecology of the centre or programme. As an addendum to this discus-
sion one may reflect on how external competitive funding affect
quality and excellence in science and in CoEs in particular—a rele-
vant issue since amount of complementary funding is often used an
indicator to evaluate such programmes (Hellström 2012). Whitley
and Gläser (2007) point out how an excess of external funding may
undermine rather than promote quality by encouraging mainstream-
ing and short-termism in research. Likewise, the claim that external
income is proof of scientific quality is questionable given observed
‘resource-mediated Mathew effects’, that is where money itself
begets more money (Gillett 1991).
b. Organizational development: the elaboration of management
processes, structures, and procedures within organizations as
well as with regard to their relationships to other stakeholders
(such as the business community and government).
c. Institutional and legal framework development: creating and
maintaining legal and institutional arrangements that enable or-
ganizations, institutions, and agencies to enhance their capacities
(IIEP—International Institute for Educational Planning 2006).
This layered model is interesting for several reasons. On the one
hand, capacity building in the HER sector can easily be argued as
crucial to almost all other sectors in a society. On the other hand,
we know little about what conditions make it so, and what factors
may actually ‘isolate’ that sector from other social layers and activ-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020

ities that might benefit from it. Söderbaum (2001) therefore suggests
In conclusion to this section, we observe that it is now fairly ac-
a ‘holistic’ notion of capacity from research; a recognition that re-
cepted that ‘excellence’ involves more than simply frontier research
search capacity is realized on different levels, that these levels need
at a high level of accomplishment, and that an extended notion,
to be actively connected, and that we must analyse on what level a
including frontline and useful research, as well as a number of other
research policy instrument contributes to capacity. Public invest-
social expectations can be, and has been, adopted, at least in the
ments in research are, in addition, often torn between (at least) two
way the concept is applied by funding bodies such as the ERC
dominating goals: scientific and growth or development goals
(Luukkonen 2013). This definitional issue may also have some em-
(Leach and Waldman 2009). Scientific goals are usually expressed
pirical grounding in the attitudes of researchers involved in excel-
as a desire to achieve international recognition and academic stand-
lence initiatives: Wigren-Kristoferson et al. (2011) report on a large
ing in branches of science, while growth or development goals are
survey of Swedish universities, that outreach and transfer activities
expressed as the aspiration to strengthen industrial capacity to solve
were overrepresented among CoE when compared with the general
social problems, educate the national workforce including its leaders
university system. Interestingly enough research leaders reported
and decision makers, prevent brain drain, and address other national
personal motivations such as ‘duty’ and ‘enjoyment’ as driving
challenges (Meek et al. 2009). A crucial question here is to what ex-
forces to diversify to outreach activities. CoEs are also significant as
tent one goal can support the other or whether there may actually be
a new organizing principle for the university. Rip (2011) suggests
conflicts between them (Leach and Waldman 2009). The simple
that apart from the fact that CoEs can cater to university needs in
duality between science and growth/development however is con-
terms of renewing teaching offerings, these organizations can also
founded by the argument that scientific capacity is a social goal in
help universities towards renewal by diversifying its structures cog-
its own right, and necessary for general social and institutional cap-
nitively and institutionally into what he refers to as ‘the postmodern
acity building. For example, Kearney (2009) outlines seven potential
university’. Here, however, there may be reasons to adopt a critical
consequences of research investments that may lead to social and
view. OECD (2014) found that CoEs can create divisions within
economic capacity benefits:
existing academic environments in terms of ad hoc adding of new
specialism, as well as in terms of resource distribution. Aarrevaara • contacts with international research,
et al. (2017) point out that excellence is among several organiza- • provision of local analysis and advice,
tional imperatives that risks creating a compliance culture at univer- • identification of relevant research agendas,
sities, where indicators are often imposed from the outside, thereby • critical thinking in higher education,
undermining autonomy. There is also a risk that the multifaceted • evidence-based criticism and debate for policy making,
functions of the university suffer, as excellence may push out rele- • capacity to train future generations of researchers,
vance and societal engagement (Maassen 2017). • stimulation of national innovation systems.

Typically, publically funded research capacity is centralized at

2.4 Capacity building and research
the larger higher education institutions (HEIs) which assume respon-
Obviously there is no single or simple definition of capacity build-
sibility for channelling the national commitment to research, pro-
ing. Over the years however a general understanding has developed
moting a culture of inquiry, developing the capacity to utilize
where, to quote for example UNESCO ‘capacity is [the] ability of in-
international research results, and assuring the acquisition of re-
dividuals, organizations and systems to perform appropriate func-
search skills. Such a system, which is centralized yet has only weak
tions efficiently, effectively and sustainably’ (UNESCO 2005). This
capacity at the outset, is precarious and faces three main challenges
has come to mean the way individuals, groups, institutions, and
(Kearney 2009). These are (a) the dilution and redirection of pos-
societies strengthen their abilities to, on the one hand, perform core
sible resources for research; (b) challenges posed by the rapid expan-
functions, solve problems, and formulate and achieve objectives,
sion of higher education to meet increasing demand; and
and, on the other hand, to understand and deal with their needs in a
(c) fragmentation of research-oriented action. In all three of these
broad context and in a sustainable manner (UNDP 1997; UNESCO
areas it seems that one possible strategy would consist of creating
2005). For the purposes of this study we may take a leaf from the
critical mass in research in a smaller number of carefully selected
pages of the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP),
areas, or alternatively using a CoE approach to consolidate research
which divides the issues of capacity building into:
capacity in areas where a country is relatively strong.
a. Human resource development: providing the skills, information, Drawing on the above reasoning we can summarize the relevance
knowledge, and training to enable actors to perform effectively. of CoEs for capacity building in the following way. CoEs may be an
546
Figure 1. An analytical framework for CoE schemes in capacity building.
instrument for capacity building in so far as they have the potential
to realize human resource development, improve organizational cap-
acity, and create an institutional and legal framework in the HER
field, including its effects on innovation and socio-economic devel-
opment. The consolidation of resources does not necessarily imply a
choice between a scientific and a social agenda, but could instead act
to bridge these two. At the same time, and in the light of some of the
previous authors’ critical comments on research and excellence ini-
tiatives, it is important to critically assess what this might mean in
terms of debilitating impacts. One may even speak of ‘negative cap-
acity’ in the sense that for every capacity gain mentioned above there
seems to be an adverse flip-side. Ability to prioritize and focus can
narrow the diversity required to absorb new impulses.
Concentrating resources among ‘the best’ similarly risks lowering di-
versity and preventing scholarly growth from below. Research excel-
lence may push out social relevance. Building management capacity
for research risks creating managerialism. Pursuing excellence in
terms of publication can lead to mainstreaming in topic choice and
risk averse research. It is also important to note that capacity build-
ing in research policy discourse, while typically focusing on the
topics above, usually does not include alternative notions formulated
outside of a managerial, ‘top-down’, resource-oriented traditions.
Such alternative approaches would include Sen’s (1992) notion of
capability, which is construed in terms of substantive freedoms that
people value, that do not adhere to typical notions of utility, such as
choice, happiness, and fulfilment of liberties and desires. These types
of social capacities emphasize democratic principles/freedoms and
are therefore more multidimensional and heterogeneous in their
implied notion of development (see also Nussbaum 2000).
We will return to some of these arguments in the final section of
the paper. In what follows we will take a closer look at how this
study was organized to capture the logic behind CoE initiatives and
the way these attempt to realize various capacity goals.
3. Methodology
3.1 The research framework
The aim of this study was to assess, for a number of cases, in what
ways the strategic aims of CoE schemes relate to impacts and cap-
acity development. The mediating variable is of course the CoE it-
self, here represented by selection and funding mechanisms, and the
organization and evaluation principles for the respective CoE
schemes that are expected to enable such impacts. In order to cap-
ture these aspects of the schemes in a systematic way data were gath-
ered in the following dimensions: (i) the strategic aims of the CoE
funding instrument; (ii) a characterization of the CoE funding in-
strument itself, including its operational/institutional conditions
such as those relating to funding, evaluation, and governance; and
(iii) a characterization of the reported effects of the CoE scheme on
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4
capacity building and other outcomes. The logic of this structure fol-
lows loosely that of the attribution approach to logic models, where
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020
goals, factors realizing such goals, and effects, are mapped to ac-
count for the strategic logic of a programme (Spender and Eden
1998). This analytical framework was a guide for data gathering
and analysis, but was also intended to provide a starting point to ad-
dress the question of the policies and operational requirements
needed to initiate and manage different types of CoEs for the pur-
pose of capacity building as well as an assessment of whether identi-
fied effects are relevant to and adequate for capacity building.
The following analytical framework represents these relation-
ships, and was also used to guide the case development for this study
(Fig. 1). At the left is the strategic orientation (goals) of a CoE
scheme. These goals are made operational by means of a number of
institutional operational conditions such as funding and evaluation
mechanisms as well as governance and organizational solutions, and
together they are expected to generate certain impacts and capacities
such as research capacity and training. The study aims to fill this
model with empirical content, and in extension enable a discussion
on the effectiveness of a given CoE scheme in translating its strategic
aims into such outputs. The bi-directional arrow between strategic
orientation and institutional supporting/operational conditions sug-
gests the mutual dependence of these two components, and the dot-
ted line encircling the impacts and capacity building denotes that
impacts are always uncertain.
The analytical categories employed in the first two boxes are
derived from previous mapping studies on CoEs (e.g. Hellström
2011; Orr et al. 2011; Aksnes et al. 2012; Langfeldt et al. 2015).
The categories representing impacts and capacity building are flex-
ible and could involve any of the following categories and more:
• research capacities,
• technology/innovation, technical co-operation,
• socio-economic/development (capacity),
• infrastructure,
• training and skills,
• quality assurance,
• internationalization (foreign direct investment, joint ventures,
network participation, and research partnerships).
The overall assumption is that there are a number of ways of con-
joining the strategic and institutional supporting elements with spe-
cific types of CoE schemes and, most importantly, that certain types
of such combinations can be expected to generate specific outcomes
in term of impacts and capacity. Optimally, such combinations
should be derived from studying actual schemes and their impacts.
3.2 Data collection and analysis
Data were collected following the analytical framework described
above, in the form of a qualitative Small-N design encompassing
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4 547

Table 1. CoE schemes included in the study

Main orientation CoE scheme

A. Basic research • Linneus Environments (The Swedish Research Council, Sweden) (A)
• University Grants Commission Inter University Centres (India) (A)
• Networks of Centres of Excellence (Canada) (A–B)
• Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence (Australia) (A–C)
B. Innovation and • Strategic Research Centers for Industry and Society, Swedish Foundation
technological development for Strategic Research (SSF) (Sweden) (B–A)
• Indian Science Agencies Centres of Excellence (India) (B)
• Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (Canada) (B–C)
• VINN Excellence Center (VINNOVA, Sweden) (B–C)
C. Social and economic • The DST/NRF Centres of Excellence programme (Department of Science and
development Technology and National Research Foundation, South Africa) (C–A)
•

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020

Centres of Research Excellence (New Zealand) (C–A)
• Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence Program (Canada) (C–B–A)
• The Cooperative Research Centres Programme (Australia) (C)

12 cases. CoE schemes were selected according to a number of prin-
ciples that aimed to ensure a ‘maximum-variation sample’, i.e. one
that stands a good chance of capturing the available variety of types
of schemes (cf. Miles and Huberman 1994). The selection logic was
to achieve ‘sound variation’—i.e. the widest spectrum possible with-
out including atypical outliers. In other words, representative
schemes have been prioritized. Since this is not a comparative case
study, capturing variety is more important than selecting on specific
background variables such as size, funding, and duration to ensure
comparability. The sampling rationale was to select schemes that
involved a spread of disciplines; a fairly good country representation
within each category; a spread in terms of strategic aims, and size,
including size of funding and duration (e.g. the schemes represented
in Table 1 have a duration between 5 and 15 years and annual fund-
ing ranging between 500,000 and 3 million euros per year for the
CoEs). Table 1 lists the schemes included in the study.
Case information was collected through public documentation
and interviews with funding body officers, evaluation reports on the
schemes and the individual CoEs, and application documentation
(web-links to the respective initiatives are provided in the reference
section). As stated above, and following the analytical framework,
data were collected focusing on the above sources in terms of (i) the
strategic goals of the CoE scheme as expressed in programme texts
and evaluations (ii) the characterizations of the CoE schemes as rep-
resented on homepages and in evaluation reports/ToRs, including
their operational/institutional circumstances such as those relating
to funding, evaluation, and governance; (iii) the reported effects of
the CoE schemes on capacity building and other outcomes, as ex-
pressed in evaluation reports and other programme reports. For
each scheme programme officers were interviewed when needed, in
order to access complementary information.
In order to facilitate analysis, the CoE schemes were initially
grouped on the basis of their coverage of the three main types of
CoE schemes. Category A schemes are oriented towards basic and
strategic research, Category B towards innovation and technological
development, and Category C towards social and economic develop-
ment (cf. Orr et al. 2011; Aksnes et al. 2012). As Aksnes et al.
(2012) have shown it is not always possible to locate a CoE scheme
squarely in one of these categories. Hybridization and overlap are
evident in the descriptions; however, the categories are empirically
robust enough to function as organizing labels for the analysis. In
Table 1, the category ambiguity of some of the schemes is repre-
sented by more than one letter A–C being sub-fixed to the scheme.
The key elements of the schemes were derived following the ana-
lytical framework above and is presented below as analytical sum-
maries organized according to the type of CoE. For each category,
the most salient aspects were synthesized according to the model
above. This meant that the analysis applied a form of template ana-
lysis, where the main factors represented in Fig. 1 were used to or-
ganize the material into themes (King 2004). Each of the CoE
scheme types were then summarized, starting from their
characterizing features, how they relate and their implications for
capacity building. Finally, a summary discussion provides sugges-
tions and recommendations about comparative advantages and dis-
advantages of these three categories of CoEs for capacity building.
It is important to point out that the ambition with the following ac-
count, rather than to provide a comparison of CoE schemes on a na-
tional level, is to (1) present a synthesis of the salient and common
features of the CoE schemes under study, and (2) compare across
and regardless of country origin, the three types of CoE schemes
common in policy and academic literature. For ease of access the
particular scheme originating one feature or the other has therefore
been eliminated from the presentation, and focus is on capturing the
characteristics of the type of scheme in general, using the analytical
model above.
4. Results
In what follows the CoE schemes will be presented by means of an
analytical summary focusing, as stated above, on the salient features
of each category of schemes. This synthesis summary is also amplia-
tive, in that it includes a continuous interpretation of how schemes
can aid capacity building as a consequence of them including certain
features. The aim is not only presentation, but also to identify spe-
cific strengths and weaknesses of each type of scheme, depending on
policy aims. It is clear from the material that while it is possible to
categorize schemes as has been done here, it may be more worth-
while to consider CoEs as having some core features in common
with some additional optional parts or functions that can be added
depending on policy needs. In this sense one must recognize that the
proposed divisions, at least in some cases, are artificially imposed ra-
ther than reflecting ‘natural kinds’. CoEs should really be conceived
548
as located on a spectrum from basic science to socio-economic de-
velopment, where boundary instances exist. Sometimes, opposite
ends of this spectrum collapse, as for instance when basic science
CoEs are focused on national socio-economic problems. In these
cases, categorizing a CoE scheme as being of one type is less import-
ant than understanding where each of the components of the CoE
belongs, so as to avoid goal conflicts and contradictions and to fa-
cilitate the construction of a coherent scheme.
With these provisos we will now consider each of the parts of
the CoEs as presented in the models above: a) strategic orientation;
b) institutional supporting and operational mechanisms; and c) im-
pacts and capacity building. This will help identify the main charac-
teristics of each type and their potential contribution to capacity
building for development.
4.1 Strategic orientation
The main thrust of the basic and strategic research type of CoE is
the development of scientific capacity for new knowledge creation—
in terms of scientific production as well as institutional conditions
for such production. In this regard a recurrent aim of these schemes
was to strengthen ‘frontier fields of science’ and ‘internationally
competitive (world class) research’ capabilities. Any other aims are
in support of this overarching ambition and these include connecting
researchers across fields and geographical locations, connecting the
national science system to international research networks and sup-
porting scientific prioritization in the science system.
These strategic aims can build HER capacity through scientific
renewal and/or building up new fields of basic research that are rele-
vant to the national science and higher education system. It also in-
cludes the mobilization of dispersed research talent in selected fields
in order to create critical mass, i.e. creating synergies in the science
system. The stimulation of international networks, whether for
training, quality control, or possible recruitment, may aid institu-
tional capacity building, stimulate academic social capital, as well as
develop research talent. Another important by-product may be the
building of institutional capacity to formulate and carry out research
policy.
The innovation and advanced technological development CoEs
differ in some important strategic respects from the above. Their
main purpose is of course to stimulate innovation and technological/
industrial development rather than science as such. Their subsidiary
aims are supporting strategic and applications-oriented research and
expertise, bringing together complementary resources for technical/
industrial application and bridging the gap between researchers and
users. These suggest that apart from knowledge transfer from re-
searchers to industry in the form of things like inventions, it is trans-
fer of knowledge and competence that is key. As with the basic and
strategic science CoEs, a central aim is creating critical mass in a
field, but here it is for the purpose of focusing problem solving ef-
forts on issues relevant to industry. Bringing academe, policy, and
industry closer together is an important strategic aim in support of
this ambition. Unlike in basic science, development of innovation
capacity cannot take place in isolation within academia, and this is a
basic insight influencing the aims of this type of scheme, which ex-
plains its network orientation.
The capacity building aspect of this type of CoE is primarily to
provide an established or emerging industry with the knowledge and
expertise it needs for renewal and innovation and ultimately na-
tional growth, by adapting the science base. As with the basic sci-
ence CoEs, the benefits come from achieving critical mass and in
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4
making research accessible to industry, which in turn may simplify
technology transfer. These aims are in support of creating conditions
for the use of public research, a science system which is more re-
sponsive to industry problems, and that adapts its skill set and com-
petence to meet industry needs.
The social and economic development type of CoE naturally
aims beyond just innovation and technological development, al-
though those aspects may be included. The main emphasis is on gen-
erating the competence and skills to address national challenges, to
focus and specialize competence in the higher education system, and
to stimulate triple-helix and user-driven collaborations to meet
socio-economic challenges. In contrast to the other CoE categories,
it is intangible outputs that matter. The ultimate outcomes are ex-
pected to be various kinds of social and economic improvements,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020
such as development and development capacity.
In this category the capacity development aspect is most clearly
visible through the connection of research to national goals (prob-
lem solving for policy and development) and by using CoEs to im-
prove the skill base in selected areas. Improved capacity for higher
education in general (research-based education) and in certain spe-
cific areas of training is central here. The CoE may be used to focus
skills development by providing opportunity for critical mass in
parts of the higher education system and hence focused responsive-
ness to local needs. While this is still in many ways an academic en-
deavour, this is not the sort of strategic aim that the basic science
and innovation-oriented CoEs will typically express. It is perfectly
compatible with aims such as social capital development, or the
stimulation of network ties in triple-helix constellations. Triple-
helix constellations usually work through the improvement of com-
petence and skills in social problem solving, rather than through
academic research output.
4.2 Institutional supporting and operational
mechanisms
This category refers to the selection, funding/evaluation, and organ-
izational requirements relating to the CoE schemes. It is striking that
while the strategic aims (and as we will see the impacts) of the CoE
schemes differ enough to make it useful to categorize them, the same
is not true for their institutional supporting and operational mechan-
isms. These appear almost the same across schemes, with small vari-
ations, for example in the way they are evaluated. They will
therefore be summarized together, while pointing out some smaller
but apparent differences.
Typically, CoEs are realized through an application/funding ap-
proach involving competitive calls, two- or three-stage selection
processes (with pre-proposals), and funding timelines of 5–10 years,
with sometimes as much as 15 years. Generally, up to 50% matching
funding is provided by the host HEI and/or partner organizations.
In the case of socio-economic development CoEs, HEIs may some-
times be exempt from co-funding. Selection is conducted by aca-
demic committees (usually international) in the case of basic and
strategic research CoEs and mixed practitioner–academic commit-
tees in the case of innovation and development-oriented CoEs.
Selection criteria involve programme quality, investigator quality,
potential for scientific or socio-economic renewal, networking and
partnerships, national academic visibility, contribution to national
goals, and similar value dimensions. Evaluations are conducted by
annual financial and operational reviews, mid-term evaluations
focusing on outputs (whether academic results or socio-economic
activities) and operations, and final evaluations focusing on results
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4
and impacts. CoEs may be subject to a reduction or increase in funds
depending on their performance in these evaluations.
It is interesting to note that in most cases CoEs seem to be free to
organize as they see fit, albeit with the expectation that they will
have transparent decision-making structures, diversity, and formal
communication structures, as well as an advisory and governing
board and some sort of formal connection between CoE leadership
and HEI/host leadership. There is usually (but not always) also a re-
quirement for unitary organization, i.e. ‘under one roof’ (a notable
exception is the Canadian Network CoEs). These institutional con-
ditions differ in most respects from typical project funding, and
there is no doubt they will have a positive impact on institutional
capacity building, as they offer scholars the opportunity to engage in
academic management and leadership rather than simple self-
management. That being said, traditional project funding often
offers opportunities for research leadership, although perhaps not to
the same extent as in CoEs. For research councils, the CoE institu-
tional format provides an opportunity to carry out funding activities
with a deeper involvement than is typical and to develop and test
new funding mechanisms.
4.3 Impacts and capacity building
Impacts are of course crucially related to capacity building, and several
of the impacts reported by research councils, e.g. in evaluations, can
be interpreted as the creation of capacity. We will focus on these here.
In the case of basic and strategic research CoE schemes, the primary
impact is the enhancing of national research capacity through achiev-
ing critical mass in particular areas of science. Others are related to im-
proved capacity to develop and act on new research opportunities,
and others relate to research infrastructure development. Improving
co-operation between researchers and public sector/industry, locally as
well as internationally, is a recurring theme. When it comes to training
and skills, professionalization of the craft of research and improving
the ability to lead research are both central to capacity building in sci-
ence. The second of these especially should be a key valued outcome
when funding larger research organizations as opposed to individual
project researchers. In terms of socio-economic development, the
transfer of R&D capacity across sectors is another central impact that
may stimulate the national science system as a whole.
Innovation and technological development CoE schemes also
put an emphasis on knowledge creation, but here the main thrust is
towards making the most of human resources, networking—particu-
larly creating fruitful encounters between academe and businesses,
and the creation and attraction of expertise. Finding complementary
expertise with the potential to solve specific problems relevant to in-
novation and commercialization seems central. This involves at-
tracting international talent and enabling international research
networks, but also enabling industry talent to enter into academe
and vice versa, for example through joint infrastructure utilization,
end-user involvement in research, and sectorally mixed governing
boards. Skills transfer through education and training of industrial
actors as well as research training in situ in industry is an important
outcome. The most salient and direct capacity building in socio-
economic development terms are the creation of new research-based
firms, retaining domestic companies and attracting investments. But
there is also the more general capacity of making users available for
technology verification when needed.
In a sense, the socio-economic development CoEs represent a re-
turn to building research capacities in the traditional sense of build-
ing critical mass in promising areas, however the impacts here are
549
more about improving research training, increasing interdisciplinary
work, increasing research investments by the private sector, and giv-
ing researchers a more practical mentality. Other impacts include
increased international collaboration, but with a slant towards glo-
bal co-operation in education, and investments towards this end.
Long-term domestic collaboration between sectors, including joint
priority setting, increases the speed of social and economic problem
solving and stimulates long-term relationships between sectors.
The capacity for development and renewal of human capital is cen-
tral to this type of CoE. It takes the form of internship programmes
for young academics in business, development of mentorship cap-
acity, and skills transfer to industry. This includes the adaptation of
academic programmes to industry needs, for example to stimulate
their capacity to undertake their own R&D. In this type of CoE it is
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020
also indicative that the outcomes that count are knowledge transfer
(rather than technology transfer), and training workshops, policy
advice, and improvement, rather than new products as well as out-
reach activities that transfer knowledge and skill to underrepre-
sented groups. Table 2 provides a summary of the most salient
features of the CoE schemes.
5. Discussion and conclusions
The aim of this study was to map the ways in which the strategic aims
of CoE schemes relate to impacts and capacity development. In this
sense the ambition was, rather than to provide a comparison of CoE
schemes, to produce a synthesis of the salient and common features of
the schemes, and to compare the three dominant types of CoEs in
terms of strategic aims, institutional arrangements, and capacity im-
pacts. The starting point of the empirical study was that the mediating
variable between strategy and impacts (or capacity) was significant in
this regard, i.e. the way that one builds and governs a CoE scheme
through selection and funding mechanisms, requirements on organiza-
tion, and evaluation principles, etc., is tied to its strategic aims and
bears significantly on its ability to generate such impacts.
The idea that certain ways of conjoining the strategic aims and im-
pacts by means of certain institutional supporting elements would be
more obvious than others, however, turned out not to be supported
by this study. Quite the opposite, rather than seeing clear patterns, or
indeed a spurious variety of institutional solutions, what we instead
observe is a rather coherent set of organizational and governing ar-
rangements, which are applied across the various types of CoEs re-
gardless of their strategic orientation or impacts. In spite of the fact
that most of the CoE schemes left it up to the specific centres to or-
ganize themselves, the funding and evaluation conditions, and the
focus on recurrent assessments of process and administrative aspects
as well as academic production, circumscribe the available organiza-
tional solutions considerably. The CoE instrument has in fact ushered
in a whole battery of process evaluation tools, which are now promul-
gated across the international research policy landscape without
much concern about what aims and outcomes are promoted (Gläser
and Laudel 2007; Hellström 2012). The answer to the question of op-
timal institutional solutions for CoE schemes is perhaps best left for
the time being, and instead we conclude that organizational and insti-
tutional isomorphism, rather than a more thorough understanding of
the contextual contingencies of research organizing, likely has played
an important role in creating the institutional platforms for these
schemes (cf. DiMaggio and Powell 1983).
Let us instead focus on the issue most central to this study,
namely that of CoEs role in capacity building and the connection
550 Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4

Table 2. Summary of results

Strategic orientation Institutional supporting and operational Impacts and capacity building
mechanisms

A. Basic research Typical across schemes: A. Basic research

Development of scientific capacity; strengthen
frontier fields of science and internationally
competitive (networked) research capabilities;
connecting researchers across fields and geo-
graphical locations; supporting scientific pri-
oritization in the science system.
B. Innovation and technological development
Selection: Academic review committees (usually
international) or mixed practitioner–aca-
demic committees in the case of innovation
and development-oriented CoEs.
Scientific renewal; strengthened fields of re-
search relevant to the HER system; mobil-
ization of dispersed research talent and
critical mass; stimulation of research net-
works; new research talent; capacity to
formulate and carry out research policy
(priority setting), research leadership.
B. Innovation and technological
development

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020

Creating critical mass in a technical field; sup-
porting strategic and applications-oriented
knowledge; joining complementary resources
for industrial application; connecting re-
searchers and users.
C. Social and economic development
Generating competence and skills to address na-
tional challenges; focus competence in the
HER system; stimulate triple-helix and user-
driven collaborations for socio-economic
challenges.
Funding: Competitive calls; two- or three-stage
selection processes; funding of 5–15 years; up
to 50% matching funding.
Evaluation: Annual financial and operational re-
views; mid-term evaluations focusing on out-
puts and operations; final evaluations
focusing on results and impacts.
Organization: Transparent decision-making
structures; diversity and formal communica-
tion structures; advisory and governing
board; connection between CoE leadership
and HEI/host leadership.
Renewed industrial capacity from an
adapted science base; improved use of
public research; improved skill sets and
competence in science to meet industry
needs; transferred skill between science
and industry; cooperation between science
and industry; stimulation and retaining of
firms.
C. Social and economic development
Domestic collaboration between sectors; re-
newal of human capital; policy advice and
policy improvement; connection of re-
search to national goals; improved skill
base in selected socially relevant areas;
capacity for higher education; skills devel-
opment for local needs; social capital
development.

between strategy and impacts. Here, the salient questions are in
what ways capacity building can be instantiated through CoE; how
growth and development (regardless of level of development) and
science can be bridged in the context of CoEs, and what ‘meta-
capacities’ for strategic choice can be created through CoEs (e.g.
capacity to govern the national science system). The strategic aspects
of the schemes reveal a number of common threads. The most
clearly visible ones are knowledge and competence building, cross
community transfer, and critical mass in specific areas and with spe-
cific goals in mind. In the basic science-oriented schemes this trans-
lates into critical mass and visibility in research, with the important
by-product of building of institutional capacity to formulate and
carry out research policy. In innovation oriented schemes transfer of
knowledge and competence in order to further industrial develop-
ment is key, and in socioeconomic schemes a community relevant
skill base and triple-helix connections are central. Strategic aims
seem to centre on bringing actors closer in order to create conditions
for new critical mass and capacity: in science it is scientists and re-
search groups, in innovation it is researchers and industry partners,
and in socioeconomic development it is communities and knowledge
for solving social problems via a relevant skill base.
In terms of impacts one may reflect that the capacities mentioned
by Kearney (2009), such as international research contacts, provision
of expertise, and research training capacity, are all visible as impacts
across the CoE schemes, whereas they are seldom viewed as goals of
project funding. Apart from more obvious impacts such as know-
ledge and skills creation (visible in all CoE types), impacts typically
involve cooperation between researchers and sectors, enabling
encounters between academe and industry and stimulating
collaboration between domestic actors to improve social problem
solving. It is exactly this type of network impact that recur across the
schemes that set them apart from traditional project funding instru-
ments (cf. Fischer et al. 2001; Luukkonen et al. 2006). These impacts
speak clearly to the problem of achieving the interlevel social effects
from centres discussed by Söderbaum (2001) and the issue of closing
credibility gaps as well as capability gaps pointed out by Schiller and
Brimble (2009). Where national systems lack critical mass in any
one field of inquiry, the CoE approach, with its emphasis on re-
source concentration and interdisciplinarity, addresses the three
main challenges elaborated by Kearney (2009): dilution and redirec-
tion of possible resources for research, challenges posed by the rapid
expansion of higher education to meet increasing demand, and frag-
mentation of research-oriented action. The schemes reviewed here
indeed suggest, both in terms of their strategic ambitions and im-
pacts, that creating critical mass in research in a smaller number of
carefully selected areas, can be done through the CoE approach.
In many ways the impacts being ostensibly sought appear to be
tangible capacity outcomes rather than ‘meta capacities’ or the abil-
ities involved in formulating and carrying out policy and research in
new ways, sometimes also referred to as dynamic capabilities
(cf. Teece et al. 1997). In Section 3 of this article it was suggested that
CoEs may be an instrument for capacity building in so far as they,
apart from actually training skilled labour, also have the potential to
realize capacity for human resource development, enhance organiza-
tional governing capacity, and create institutional and legal frame-
works in the research and higher education field. These factors are
exactly of this meta-character in that they enable change rather than
simply being outcomes of such change. The results from this study
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4
suggest that CoEs may indeed be a fruitful way to realize these capaci-
ties. For example, there are clear indications that, across the schemes
and scheme types, the emphasis is on human resource development
for the science and HEI system, as opposed to the traditional
publication-oriented emphasis of project funding, and on skills devel-
opment and transfer rather than on product development and new
firms. There is also a clear indication that these schemes require a pro-
fessionalization of research organizations, including funders, that may
ultimately stimulate the research system as a whole away from piece-
meal non-directed funding and towards a capacity for priority setting
and more systematic evaluations of the research effort.
The institutional experimentation and learning that takes place on
the university organization level in the development and implementa-
tion of these fields stimulates professionalization of the academic work-
force, e.g. by enabling the researchers to step up to also functioning as
academic managers (keeping in mind that this is not always a positive
outcome). It also helps enabling organizations such as universities to
set their own priorities, engage in professional research governance,
and renew their disciplinary structures (cf. Rip 2011). All these repre-
sent crucial capacities on the level of the research performing organiza-
tions, as well as meta-capacities for renewal of the system.
While the above communicates a positive message about CoE
schemes’ place in the research policy mix, it is also important to rec-
ognize the possible downsides of this instrument. For each of the
benefits discussed above there are potential negative effects.
Excellence in research can translate into mainstreaming and risk
averseness if evaluative dimensions become too rigid; managerialism
can arise from management capacity; and resource concentration
for excellence, while enabling prioritization of scarce resources, also
risks creating non-productive divisions and hierarchies in the re-
search landscape. We spoke earlier of ‘negative capacities’ to indi-
cate that one and the same capacity can both stimulate and impede
the HER system. Future research into excellence schemes could
benefit from identifying such outcomes more carefully.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research conducted within the IHERD project
(Innovation, Higher Education and Research for Economic Development)
funded by the OECD and the KNOWSCIENCE project funded by the
Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences.
Conflict of interest statement. None declared.
References
Aarrevaara, T., Wikström, J., and Maassen, P. (2017) ‘External Stakeholders
and Internal Practices in Departments of Teacher Education at European
Universities’, Higher Education Quarterly, 71: 251–62.
Aksnes, D., Benner, M., Brorstad Borlaug, S. et al. (2012) Centres of
Excellence in the Nordic Countries: A Comparative Study of Research
Excellence Policy and Excellence Centre Schemes in Denmark, Finland,
Norway and Sweden. Oslo: Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation,
Research and Education.
Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence (Australia) <http://www.
arc.gov.au/arc-centres-excellence> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
Balderston, F. E. (1995) Managing Today’s University: Strategies for Viability,
Change and Excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beerkens, E. (2009) ‘Centers of Excellence and Relevance: The Contextualization
of Global Models’, Science, Technology & Society, 14/1: 153–75.
551
Borlaug, S. B. (2016) ‘Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection in Research
Funding: Centers of Excellence in Norway and Sweden’, Science and Public
Policy, 43/3: 352–62.
Burt, R. S. (2004) ‘Structural Holes and Good Ideas’, American Journal of
Sociology, 110/2: 349–99.
Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence Program (Canada) <www.
nce-rce.gc.ca> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (Canada) <www.
nce-rce.gc.ca> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
Centres of Research Excellence (New Zealand) <https://www.education.govt.
nz/ministry-of-education/overall-strategies-and-policies/centres-of-re
search-excellence-cores/> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited:
Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational
Fields’, American Sociological Review, 48/2: 147–60.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020
Fischer, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, K., and House, D. (2001) ‘Changes in
Academy/Industry/State Relations in Canada: The Creation and Development
of the Networks of Centers of Excellence’, Minerva, 39: 299–325.
Gillett, R. (1991) ‘Pitfalls in Assessing Research Performance by Grant
Income’, Scientometrics, 22: 253–63.
Gläser, J., and Laudel, G. (2007) ‘Evaluation without Evaluators: The Impact of
Funding Formulae on Australian University Research’. In: R., Whitley, K.,
Barker, and J. Gläser (eds) The Changing Governance of the Sciences: The
Advent of Research Evaluation Systems, pp. 127–51. Dordrecht: Springer.
Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Rogers, J. D. et al. (2009) ‘Organizational and
Institutional Influences on Creativity in Scientific Research’, Research
Policy, 38: 610–23.
Hellström, T. (2011) ‘Homing in on Excellence: Dimensions of Appraisal in
Center of Excellence Program Evaluations’, Evaluation, 17/2: 117–31.
(2012) ‘Epistemic Capacity in Research Environments: A Framework
for Process Evaluation’, Prometheus, 30/4: 395–409.
Hemlin, S., Allwood, C. M. and Martin, B. M., eds (2004) Creative
Knowledge Environments—The Influences on Creativity in Research and
Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hicks, D., and Katz, J. S. (2011) ‘Equity and Excellence in Research Funding’,
Minerva, 49: 137–51.
Hollingsworth, R., and Hollingsworth, E. J. (2000) ‘Major Discoveries in
Biomedical Research Organizations: Perspectives on Interdisciplinarities,
Nurturing Leadership, and Integrated Structures and Cultures’. In: P.,
Weingart, and N. Stehr (eds) Practicing Interdisciplinarity, pp. 215–44.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hornbostel, S. (2001) ‘Third Party Funding of German Universities: An
Indicator of Research Activity?’, Scientometrics, 50: 523–37.
IIEP—International Institute for Educational Planning. (2006) Guidebook for
Planning Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction. Paris: UNESCO.
Indian Science Agencies Centres of Excellence (India) <www.dbtindia.nic.in>
and <www.dot.gov.in> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
Kearney, M.-L. (2009) ‘Higher Education, Research and Innovation: Charting
the Course of the Changing Dynamics of the Knowledge Society’. In: M.-L.,
Kearney (ed.) Higher Education, Research and Innovation: Changing
Dynamics, pp. 7–23. Paris: UNESCO.
King, N. (2004) ‘Using Templates in the Thematic Analysis of Text’. In: C.,
Cassell, and G., Symon (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in
Organizational Research, pp. 256–70. London: Sage.
Kitagawa, F. (2010) ‘Pooling Resources for Excellence and Relevance: An
Evolution of Universities as Multi-Scalar Network Organizations’, Minerva,
48: 169–87.
Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G. et al. (2015) ‘Excellence and Growth
Dynamics: A Comparative Study of the Matthew Effect’, Science and Public
Policy, 42/5: 661–75.
Laudel, G. (2006) ‘The “Quality Myth”: Promoting and Hindering
Conditions for Acquiring Research Funds’, Higher Education, 52: 375–403.
Leach, M., and Waldman, L. (2009) Centers of Excellence? Questions of
Capacity for Innovation, Sustainability, Development. STEPS Working
Paper 23. Brighton: STEPS Centre.
552
Linneus Environments (Sweden). <www.vr.se> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
Luukkonen, T., Nedeva, M., and Barré, R. (2006) ‘Understanding the Dynamics
of Networks of Excellence’, Science and Public Policy, 33/4: 239–52.
Luukkonen, T. (2013) ‘The European Research Council and the European
Research Funding Landscape’, Science and Public Policy, 40/1: 1–15.
Maassen, P. (2017) ‘The University’s Governance Paradox’, Higher Education
Quarterly, 71: 290–8.
Meek, V. L., Teichler, U., and Kearney, M-L. eds (2009) Higher Education,
Research and Innovation: Changing Dynamics. Paris: UNESCO.
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd
edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Networks of Centres of Excellence (Canada) <www.nce-rce.gc.ca> accessed
28 Mar 2017
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities
Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
OECD. (2014) Promoting Research Excellence: New Approaches to Funding.
Paris: OECD.
Orr, D., Jeager, M., and Wespel, J. (2011) New Forms for Public Research: A
Concept Paper on Research Excellence Initiatives. Paris: OECD.
Rip, A. (2011) ‘The Future of Research Universities’, Prometheus, 29/4:
443–53.
Schiller, D., and Brimble, P. (2009) ‘Capacity Building for University–Industry
Linkages in Developing Countries: The Case of Thai Higher Education
Development Project’, Science, Technology & Society, 14/1: 59–92.
Sen, A. (1992) Inequality Reexamined. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Spender, J.-C., and Eden, C. eds (1998) Managerial and Organizational
Cognition. London: Sage Publications.
Science and Public Policy, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 4
Söderbaum, F. (2001) ‘Networking and Capacity Building: The Role of
Regional Research Networks in Africa’, The European Journal of
Development Research, 13/2: 144–63.
Strategic Research Centers for Industry and Society, Swedish Foundation for
Strategic Research (Sweden) <www.stratresearch.se> accessed 28 Mar
2017.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. (1997) ‘Dynamic Capabilities and
Strategic Management’, Strategic Management Journal, 18/7: 509–33.
The Cooperative Research Centres Programme (Australia) <www.business.
gov.au/grants-and-assistance/Collaboration/CRC/Pages/default.aspx> ac-
cessed 28 Mar 2017.
The DST/NRF Centres of Excellence programme (South Africa) <www.nrf.
ac.za/division/rcce/instruments/centre-of-excellence> accessed 28 Mar
2017.
UNDP. (1997) Capacity Development Resource Book. New York: UNDP.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/45/4/543/4652938 by guest on 03 April 2020
UNESCO. (2005) Towards Knowledge Societies. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
University Grants Commission Inter University Centres (India). <www.ugc.
ac.in> accessed 28 Mar 2017.
VINN Excellence Center (Sweden) <www.vinnova.se> accessed 28 Mar
2017.
Whitley, R., and Gläser, J. eds (2007) The Changing Governance of the
Sciences: The Advent of Research Evaluation Systems. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Wigren-Kristoferson, C., Gabrielsson, J., and Kitagawa, F. (2011) ‘Mind
the Gap and Bridge the Gap: Research Excellence and Diffusion of
Academic Knowledge in Sweden’, Science and Public Policy, 38/6:
481–92.