In recent years, the term ‘excellence’ has become extremely popular in Europe. There is hardly any award being made or centre established, there are almost no academic institutions nor government programmes left, that do not link themselves to the notion of ‘excellence’. Its inflationary use has already triggered several attempts to supersede being considered ‘excellent’ by calling something ‘mega-excellent’ or by replacing ‘excellent’ with ‘outstanding’. However, that even being labelled ‘outstanding’ is not enough has recently been demonstrated by Council Members of the European Research Council (ERC). For them, successful applicants nowadays have to be even ‘truly outstanding’.
According to the still prevailing popularity of its use, the term ‘excellence’ can be found in the terminology of a variety of European countries’ initiatives to strengthen the science and research sector with particular grants and support mechanisms, to benefit the respective university systems, and to thereby create poles of outstanding achievement, ‘poles of excellence’. While the German ‘Exzellenzinitiative’ or ‘Initiative on Excellence’, which commenced in 2006, is due to expire in 2017, so initiatives in other EU countries have been subsequently introduced. Looking at them more closely, it appears to remain an ambition for the entire continent to achieve, yes, ‘excellence’. Considering the semantics for a brief moment, I think we all could identify with the ambition of being ‘extremely good’ at something, which is reflected in the term. At the same time, we should sit back and bear in mind that in making use of this term we are only referring to the very tip of an enormous iceberg that we often find difficult to manage properly in the first place. And we should certainly not forget the part of this iceberg that is not sticking out, but constitutes the basis.
As far as the words ‘research’ and ‘innovation’ are concerned, we increasingly find a high degree of confusion, especially in view of the complexities involved but perhaps also with respect to the fact that not everyone seems to understand the rules of the game. In particular, the word ‘innovation’ has turned into ‘one of the most overused, under defined terms in organisational life’.Reference Light1 At least in a European context, its meaning stretches from ‘innovative science’ in the sense of finding new insights or achieving breakthroughs in basic research via inventing something new, and thus enabling product or process innovations, all the way through to the latest catchwords in EU research policy-making ‘the Innovation Union’ and its ‘Horizon 2020’. The rationale behind the ever-widening use of the term ‘innovation’ clearly has to do with rising concerns, in particular in the industrially – and scientifically – most developed parts of the world, that our capacity to innovate radically and intensely seems to be dwindling. The Economist (in its 12 January 2013 edition) reported that even in Silicon Valley people think ‘the place is stagnant, and that the rate of innovation has been slackening for decades’.2 As economic growth is closely related to inventions and improvements, The Economist seems to be deeply worried about a lack of new ideas. In a nutshell this is wonderfully represented on the cover page of the same issue addressing the question ‘Will we ever invent anything this useful again?’ and depicting a statue of a man sitting on a modern toilet seat in a thinker’s pose.
Innovation is a point of relevance for many in their respective publications, as is interventions of political and other actors – well documented by the example of the ‘Partners for Innovation’ campaign in Germany which brought together prominent political, economic, and scientific actors between 2004 and 2006 in order to contribute to an improved ‘climate of innovation’ and which concluded in one of the biggest public German social media campaigns to date – but in fact the rhetoric of innovation can hardly conceal the fact that processes of innovation appear to be relatively stalled. This may be a somewhat European and science-related perception, at least when considering the Global Innovation Index 2013 (GII) which in a broader international review states that ‘At no other point in history […] so much money [has] been spent on research and development worldwide. Never before has innovation been so well distributed among countries.’3 With Switzerland heading the ranking and seven European countries listed amongst the top ten (followed by Germany ranked 15th and the Czech Republic ranked 28th), a relatively positive picture of the European status quo could be drawn. But this always depends on the perspective and it may simply imply that the gap between more innovative and less innovative countries is diminishing. For the science sector, a relative ‘stall’ can be perceived in multiple ways and considered in an array of thematic and structural fields: the organisational settings in the respective research institutions are one example. Another example directly linked to my day-to-day work at the Volkswagen Foundation, which I would like to expose to a more in-depth consideration, is the funding situation for universities and research institutions. My experience from the support of research projects and activities shows that we should not assume that there are pre-defined or ideal patterns, the ‘right way’ of supporting sound structures and conditions. Research and innovation – in particular if the expectation is to achieve ‘excellence’ – are dependent on appropriate and reliable funding structures. Their establishment is not a simple task. And increasingly are philanthropic support measures gaining importance in the high-level research fields while public financial engagement is at risk or dwindling (Cf. Ref. 4).
With its diverse and complex structures, the field of research and innovation is extremely difficult to measure and compare. However, there has been a notable tendency throughout the past few years to project an increasing relevance onto the results of comparisons in the form of rankings in this area. The many variables in such comparisons render it extremely difficult to filter and condense the relevant results. The different approaches pursued to reach the common objectives cannot properly be taken into consideration in a one-size-fits-all comparison. Nevertheless, there are undoubtedly some rankings that have established a respectable standard and status in the world of science such as the Times Higher Education (or THES) ranking and the Shanghai Ranking of World Universities.
The outstanding performance of American research universities is confirmed in all major rankings of world universities. With seven out of ten in the THES Ranking 2011/12 and eight out of the top ten, 17 out of 20, and 57 of the top 100 in the Shanghai Ranking of World Universities 2012, the leading position of the US top-notch institutions remains largely unchallenged.
It is only when we look at the top 500 that Europe, with 202 universities, surpasses the Americas with 182 top-ranked institutions. The fact that apart from a few British, French and Swiss universities hardly any European universities are to be found among the top 50 in the world, but there are more than 200 among the top 500, reflects the approach traditionally taken in most European countries throughout the second half of the twentieth century. With a predominant focus on broad-based and regionally distributed support for a fairly large number of higher education institutions offering high quality teaching and research, resources were evenly distributed instead of giving priority to a few research universities enjoying international visibility.
If we take a closer look at German universities in international rankings, it probably does not come as a surprise that the University of Göttingen as well as the two Munich universities and the University of Heidelberg rank very highly in almost all rankings. What may be a surprise, however, is the fact that neither Göttingen nor the highly ranked universities at Bonn, Freiburg or Würzburg were ultimately successful in the German Initiative on Excellence.
Common Objectives – Different Approaches
Irrespective of such ranking results, Europe’s universities and research institutions compare favourably with the rest of the world in many respects: the European Union is by far the biggest scientific space on earth. The largest number of academics and also postgraduate students are trained here. European universities confer almost twice as many doctorates as those of the United States. Europe also produces the highest number of scientific publications. But if we look at Europe’s share of the world’s most frequently cited publications, and above all the numbers of benchmark science awards, including the Nobel Prizes, Fields medals, and so on, significant weaknesses emerge: basically, too few fundamental breakthroughs are made in Europe. In the last few decades a far greater number of Nobel Prizes and similarly prestigious international awards have gone to scientists working in other parts of the world, notably the United States. Europe’s ability to market basic innovations is also comparatively underdeveloped, a situation that has not changed significantly with the recently increased focus on linkages between research and industry, or the Nobel Prizes awarded to European scientists over the last five years.
Already during the first decade of the twenty-first century research policy advisors across Europe realised that it is essential to provide first-class conditions for teaching, research and innovation if Europe does not want to be left behind by the world’s leading research systems. The speed of change in the international division of labour from a world of hands, tools, and machines to one of brains, computers, and laboratories must be matched by the pace of development in the conditions to be met by internationally competitive universities and research institutes. In almost all EU member states organisational structures were changed and new forms of competition were launched in order to increase competitiveness of the respective higher education and research institutions. An additional objective was to trigger reform measures that otherwise would hardly have been possible and certainly not within a few years. But as we know from other walks of life, setting the objectives and reaching them may be two quite different things. In particular, when all too ambitious objectives are set, unintended effects may prevail at the end.
This is not to say that the French attempts to shake up their higher education and research system did not reach their objectives. In fact, I think it is still too early to judge whether they had the intended effects or produced a number of side effects. When, in 2012, I was involved in a panel evaluating the performance of the French National Research Agency (ANR), which was established by the French government in 2005 to fund research projects, based on competitive schemes giving researchers the best opportunities to realise their projects and paving the way for ground-breaking new knowledge, we could at least say that the newly established arenas for French researchers were quite successful in bringing more flexibility to the French research system, in fostering new dynamics, and in triggering new public–private collaborations.
The ANR was also crucial in implementing a major programme called ‘Investissements d’Avenir’ or ‘Investments for the Future’, which was launched at the end of 2009 and enabled research and higher education institutions to win an additional €21.9 billion. The main focus was on ten-year projects opening up new perspectives and leading to collaborative associations that would otherwise never have existed. Furthermore, the funds are meant to enable not only the financing of large-scale research projects but also the implementation of new infrastructures, research equipment and the emergence of global research and higher education clusters.
As a member of a commission led by Philippe Aghion I was also involved in developing a concept for the ‘Grand Emprunt’, which suggested a set of reforms for the French university system and recommended the government establish ‘Pôle d’excellence’ and to provide opportunities for some of the best French higher education institutions to win a donation of the order of €750 to 950 million. The subsequent selection process singled out the eight winning institutions. Two of them, the universities of Aix-en-Provence and Marseille, have been merged into one winning institution in the meantime, and four of the others are located in and around Paris (Île de France). For a centralised country such as France this result of a geographically limited selection does not come as a surprise: the French elites and the schools they went to (in particular the Grandes Ecoles) have always been concentrated in and around Paris.
In a comparative review, a much more scattered landscape is presented when we look at the results of the German Initiative on Excellence in 2006/07 as well as in 2012. Right from the start the German initiative offered funding in three different areas:
∙ Graduate Schools to promote young researchers and offer them opportunities to prepare for their doctorates;
∙ Clusters of Excellence to promote cutting-edge collaborative research;
∙ Institutional Strategies to promote top-level research and to enhance international visibility.
During the first two rounds of selection in 2006/07 nine universities were awarded the status of a university of excellence. In 2012 this number was raised to 11 but at the same time three formerly included universities had to drop out: the universities of Freiburg and Göttingen as well as the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology.
The German race for excellence was, above all, a governance competition. And it aimed at granting universities more freedom and autonomy. The committee I chaired in 2005 on ‘The Cornerstones of a Sustainable German Research System: 12 Recommendations’ had already made the following recommendation for such an independent university of the future:
The universities must be given the freedom to participate and succeed in national and international competition in their respective fields of strength. This requires appropriate decision-making, management and administrative structures for setting priorities in their competitive environment. The university of the future bases its action on standards deriving from science and research but it also has an obligation towards society with regard to its activities and with regard to the return on funds invested in it..
Equally important was another recommendation of the ‘Cornerstones’, concerning the relationship between university and non-university research institutions with its central – and at the same time highly controversial – postulate: ‘In the interest of their ability to compete at the international level, the universities must be strengthened through close co-operation with or even structural integration of non-university research institutions’. This recommendation for the fall of institutional walls was applied by many concepts, most prominently by the planned merger of the Technical University and the Research Centre Karlsruhe to form the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology but also at Göttingen (and later on, following in its footsteps, also at Dresden) through a Göttingen Research Council coordinating all the activities across five Max Planck Institutes, a Leibniz Institute and a number of other institutions jointly with the University (thus establishing the Göttingen Research Campus) as well as at Aachen forming the Jülich-Aachen Research Alliance. Furthermore, new structural elements such as Institutes of Advanced Study within universities have initiated an exciting process of priority-setting and career development. With the help of numerous inter-, and transdisciplinary centres, clusters, and other organisational structures, it has been possible to coordinate research efforts beyond individual institutions and to offer new opportunities for career development based on tenure track options for junior researchers.
Recently, the German Council of Science and Humanities, one of the leading advisory bodies for German governments in the field of research policy, published its report ‘Perspektiven des deutschen Wissenschaftsystems’ (‘Perspectives of the German Science System’). It therein reinstated that the traditional institutions of tertiary education, notably universities and colleges, should particularly be strengthened (cf. p. 8 and p. 28 f. of the report). This has caused some criticism from non-university institutions, which consider this particular recommendation a detriment to their own efforts. At the same time, the report is also clearly establishing a close link between the recommendation and the necessity to create career opportunities and tenure track options for junior researchers. The consideration that universities and colleges are the more socially relevant actors in the field of science and scholarship is valid. Paired with the call for a continuously strong cooperation between university and non-university institutions it appears a reasonable recommendation in view of the demographic perspectives and the Council’s own role.
In several other European countries we also find attempts to foster excellence within the respective universities. In Spain, the initiative ‘International Campus of Excellence’, launched by the Spanish Ministry of Education in 2009 was aimed at fostering the modernisation and internationalisation of Spanish university campuses. It also focused on teaching, research, and aspects of technology transfer. The ultimate goal in Spain has been almost the same as in other European countries: To achieve greater international visibility of campuses and to enhance international exchanges of students, academics, and researchers.
In Denmark and Sweden there were several attempts made to create excellent research environments on top of already well-performing universities. The ‘Linnaeus environments’ in Sweden aimed at enhancing support for research of the highest quality that can compete internationally and supported the respected units for up to ten years. That is also the time frame for the Danish National Research Foundation’s programme on ‘Centres of Excellence’, which are usually supported with some €6 to 13 million for periods of up to ten years.
In recapitulating and summing up the different initiatives on excellence from a number of European countries and in taking a first glimpse towards the next steps beyond 2017 – when the current German initiative is set to expire – some first general experiences and lessons learned can be formulated. I can look back on an involvement in the preparatory processes leading up to the initial stage of the German Initiative on Excellence in 2007. In my day-to-day work I am continuously exposed to questions of research policy. And while I am aiming to encourage pro-active learners and creative scientists, I am also aiming at formulating relevant contributions to how the best conditions can be achieved on a policy level as a sound basis for success. Some common denominators have become apparent throughout the implementation phase of the collective support mechanisms and as part of the experiences with clusters of excellence. They have been learning points for me – and I do hope we will be able to observe and incorporate them as success factors for future initiatives that may follow.
∙ The initiatives should be aiming at long-term support and tenure opportunities for the selected researchers and institutions. Such long-term support should ideally be based on previous activities, already achieved visibility, and a high reputation of the supported institutions and their ability to sustainably develop competences.
∙ The existing strengths of the respective institutions shall be reflected in the clusters of excellence.
∙ Cooperation with a broad range of non-university actors and institutions shall be guaranteed in a notion of incorporating local and regional partners and supporters.
∙ A strong governing body shall be established in order to guarantee sound conceptual, strategic, and communicative operations.
∙ Active participation in crucial strategy development and review processes shall be guaranteed for all actors involved.
∙ High priority shall be accorded to the support of scientific talent and early-career generations of researchers in a qualitative and in a quantitative regard.
∙ State-of-the-art infrastructure – libraries, IT, etc – must be provided to support the efforts of researchers towards successful research and innovation.
I do not intend to claim that the observance of the factors named will unequivocally lead to a successful completion of initiatives on excellence and their instruments. But I am convinced that at least a number of originally unintended positive effects could be triggered by their application: the inspiration of new research themes and their creative variations, a stronger ambition to attain PhD and professorship status in competent training institutions, and the creation of career perspectives for those researchers who were successful with their selection of themes and methodologies.
Ultimately, all of the conducted reform measures will be judged by the degree to which more creativity can be achieved in research, teaching, and research management. Of course, everyone would like to end up with the researcher carrying super results under his or her arms. But I am afraid I need to say that we will also have to take a closer look at the less successful colleagues and their heroic failures. Possibly, there is even more to learn from failure than from success – be it on an individual or an institutional basis.
Drawbacks, Dichotomies, Imbalances, and Constraints
Measured by the same terms, there is a lot to learn about structures and processes to enable success just the same. This holds true for a variety of relevant spheres, amongst them funding processes: applicants as well as funders are aware of the crucial importance of peer review in the process of identifying promising new ideas as well as in making judgements on research results. On one hand it is crucial to convey the message that high international standards will be applied. On the other, it is just as important not to discourage some of the most creative minds from applying. Of course, we will usually end up with more negative than positive results in our assessment and selection processes but it is essential to encourage creative minds – regardless of gender or age – to send in their proposals.
Experience tells me that it is important to identify members of assessment panels in such a way that they themselves must have a track record of transgressing disciplinary and/or national boundaries, of being open-minded for new ideas. Hopefully, there will not be too many with the conviction of a panel member in a German high-level decision-making body who stated quite recently: ‘I am always in favour of new ideas but this one I have never heard of’. I rather prefer the collegial approach. Whenever a researcher assumes that a miracle occurs, encouraging and collegial advice and guidance towards a reconsideration of the questions in doubt is hopefully well taken.
In higher education and research-policy making we often tend to think in terms of binary oppositions (black versus white, big versus small, and so on). This mode of thinking in many respects implies that we end up in controversies about dilemmas and false dichotomies, and thus neglect the manifold interdependencies and the permeability of existing boundaries among and between certain domains. One such area concerns the relationship between core-funding and additional third-party funding in European universities. Making the university compete for additional income and higher reputation was thought to be the right approach to improving its performance across all operational units. And we have indeed seen many positive results, particularly among the winners in national competitions and international rankings. However, when we take a closer look at more recent developments, we cannot help but recognise that not all the good intentions have resulted in optimal solutions. On the contrary, some unintended consequences have in the meantime led to huge imbalances and even counterproductive effects that can no longer be ignored when it comes to taking stock and reconfiguring institutional structures, processes, and procedures.
Another imbalance concerns the area of quality assurance. No doubt, the implementation of evaluation processes and assessment exercises at regular intervals has brought about not only a wealth of information regarding the respective unit of analysis but also initiated a lot of learning processes as well as numerous improvements. For many a rector and president the results of such state-, or country-wide comparisons have been serving as eye-openers concerning the qualitative positioning of the department or centre assessed. But if we look at the current situation of an almost ubiquitous array of monitorings, reviews, assessments, and evaluations we cannot help but recognise that these various instruments in one way or another have fallen victim to their own success.
As early as 1997, against of course the backdrop of an ‘explosion’ since the early 1980s of auditing and evaluation activities in the United Kingdom and North America, Michael PowerReference Power5 pointed at the manifold dysfunctional consequences of formalising quality assurance and accountability, and of ‘using inappropriately deterministic performance measures in contexts like fundamental research, where there is high uncertainty of outcomes’ (Ref. Reference Power5, p. 100). With respect to the Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs), Michael Power criticised the fact that they created ‘incentives to teach less and write more’ as well as their at best ambivalent impact on the existing research culture: ‘Cycles of research have changed in favour of publication in prestigious journals rather than books. Scientists are changing research habits, and a whole menu of activities for which performance measures have not been devised have ceased to have official value. Editing books, organising conferences, and, paradoxically, reviewing and facilitating the publication efforts of others fall out of account’ (Ref. Reference Power5, p. 100).
This kind of governing higher education and research has long since then reached its limits. Some even argue that a new disease called ‘Evaluitis’ (Bruno S. FreyReference Frey6) is spreading across Europe, and all major research organisations, funding agencies, and private foundations are currently confronted with huge difficulties in recruiting top-notch researchers for reviews (on average less than one in four referees contacted respond positively to the request). We have obviously been putting too much stress on the review system. But eminent experts are indispensable for making sound judgements. Even the most sophisticated indicators can provide us with little more than proxy-measures of past performance. Several of them tell us to what extent managerial requirements and milestones have been met. In order not to be misunderstood, let me just say that I do not think managerial aspects should be underestimated, or even neglected. On the contrary, they are quite important for the well-functioning of any institution. But good housekeeping is only a necessary precondition for institutional success. It takes much more than measurably meets the eye to provide a stimulating environment for the most creative researchers and students alike. And it must remain the principal ambition to educate pro-active learners and employ creative personnel.
Over the past two decades we have seen in almost all EU Member States an enormous shift in resource allocation at our universities. Whilst institutional core funding has at best been stagnating, and in real terms even reduced, the amount of money distributed through competitive mechanisms such as initiatives on excellence and increasingly through programme approaches has been going up almost constantly at the national as well as at the European level. A few facts and figures may suffice to illustrate this point: in 1995 one euro of third party funding for research was still matched by 2 euros of core funding at German universities, whilst in 2008 there were only 85 cents of core funding for research left in relation to one euro granted by funding agencies. This has put an enormous pressure on researchers to see to it that they can win ever more grants and contracts from funding agencies and industry. In particular, during the last five or six years the machinery to earn more grants has reached its limits, and unintended effects come to the fore in large numbers. A lot of time that could better be used focusing on real research work has to be spent on producing ever more proposals and applications. At the next level, all of these applications have to be reviewed by numerous peers. Ultimately, the time allotted to most of the grants made is fairly short (usually two to three years) and does not allow the really big, complex research questions to be tackled. Rather, researchers have to play it safe in order to be able to send in the next proposal just in time in order to extend the contracts of their co-workers, depending on third party funding. As more and more of the soft money available is topically defined through programme approaches, the freedom of topic selection by the researchers themselves is being reduced, and really original thoughts can rarely be found in this realm.
Creative Environments: Infrastructures, Time, and Space
A research-friendly climate certainly requires an appropriate and a reliable funding situation. In Europe, as in other parts of the world (for example in the United States) many private foundations – and more recently also public agencies – have developed new, medium- to long-term funding schemes enabling some of the most creative researchers to pursue their research ideas in a high trust environment. These are, for instance, the MacArthur Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Wellcome Trust in the biomedical and clinical research areas, as well as the Danish National Research Foundation and the Swedish Wallenberg Foundation, with its Academy Fellowships for all areas of science. They provide their rigorously selected fellows with sufficient funds, top-notch infrastructures, and ample time (usually 7 or 8 years) to rethink common wisdom and to ultimately achieve important breakthroughs.
The European Research Council (ERC), which was established in 2007, operates along similar lines. As I was involved in setting it up at several stages (German Council of Science and Humanities in the early 1990s, a Nature article in 2002, a panel of the European Science Foundation in 2003, and a committee established by the Danish Government on behalf of the EU Council of Ministers) I can tell you that the ERC is a perfect example for the wisdom of Victor Hugo’s statement: ‘There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.’
It took only a few calls for proposals and the rigorous selection of starting grants as well as advanced fellows to establish the ERC selection processes and their outcomes as benchmarks for excellence (some even say ‘the gold standard’) in research. As the fellows selected are free to choose their host institution anywhere in Europe, their affiliations have become a matter of great concern for research policy-makers as well as university leaders in many EU Member States. In the case of Germany, the results confirm that we are still producing a lot of outstanding researchers but that more of them are deciding to work in other countries than there are foreign researchers coming to Germany. In its ‘Annual Report on the ERC activities and achievements in 2011’7 the Council states: ‘The […] figure shows the tendency of some nationalities to work abroad rather than in their home country: […] The numbers are in particular high for Germany and Italy, with 156 and 106 nationals respectively hosted by institutions away from their home country. In both cases about 90% of these grantees were resident abroad at the time of application’ (Ref. 7, p. 41). This is in contrast to countries such as Switzerland or the UK, which boast a higher proportion of international grant recipients in their countries and where the drain of outstanding scientists is comparatively low.
This (relatively speaking) lack of attractiveness of German universities and research institutions is closely linked to the uncertainties a postdoctoral fellow is confronted with, in particular if he or she wants to become a professor. As mentioned, there are hardly any tenure track positions, and even an outstanding performance does not guarantee a reliable path towards a professorship and a scientific career. This topic has also been addressed in the recent report presented by the German Council of Science and Humanities as part of which the introduction and support of longer term ‘Merian-Professorships’ and ‘Liebig Centres’ for more reliable and more profile oriented structures next to a continued effort in the Initiative on Excellence have been recommended.
The Volkswagen Foundation already strives for many of these goals and wants to establish role-models for changing this situation by offering Lichtenberg Professorships (supported for up to 8 years) linked with a tenure track option to be ultimately confirmed after 4 years. In addition, the Dilthey, Schumpeter, and most recently the Freigeist Fellowships offer funding for up to 8 years, whilst the internationally oriented fellowships are designed to enable young postdocs to spend a year or two in an excellent research environment abroad such as Washington University, Harvard, Stanford, or Princeton in the Humanities initiative. Despite the strong emphasis on people, the Volkswagen Foundation does not discard the traditional project approach. It, for example, provides the opportunity for teams to focus on ‘Key Issues for Academia and Society’, to come up with unconventional ideas and approaches in ‘Off the Beaten Track’, and in its latest initiative, ‘Experiment!’, invites researchers to send in bold research ideas on just three pages, which will be reviewed by an international panel without disclosing names and track records of the respective applicants in the early selection stage. This small grants scheme will only work if all sides are prepared to take risks.
Backed by these and other funding mechanisms, all research institutions should aim at establishing and fostering a culture of creativity. Admittedly, ‘creativity’, just like ‘innovation’, is also one of the most overused and under-defined terms in the current research literature. The common denominator seems to be that creativity manifests itself in a piece of work that requires not merely mechanical skills to produce, but intelligence and imagination. I would like to describe such creativity as one of the main components of the elementary conditions for innovative and successful research work. While reflecting on other relevant aspects a model of the seven ‘C’s came to mind:
1. Competence. The first precondition of successful research is to provide the best training for the future generation of academics and to enable researchers in general to develop their skills freely and in the best learning environment. This is a basic prerequisite without which no further scientific development appears to be possible.
2. Creativity. To achieve excellence in research and innovation creative thought and inspiration are indispensable. Often only considered as a ‘collateral’ side aspect, I am convinced that this is an important component in striving for success. The best conditions should be guaranteed to enable creative and unconventional research projects and thoughts. Although there is no one-size-fits-all kind of recipe we can apply, it is certainly worthwhile to try and try again.
3. Commitment. Not only researchers, but also the institutional leadership and funders must make proof of their reliable commitment. People, and scientists in particular, can often only be encouraged to enter new fields and leave the beaten track if a certain degree of security is provided. While funders and supporters will always take risks, the strong commitment of supported researchers must always be one of their selection criteria.
4. Communication. Thought-provoking discussions are essential for achieving progress in research, in particular cross-disciplinary and transcultural exchanges, but also interactions with the outside world. Such communication processes should not regularly be the central aspect of research projects, but their inspirational value should by no means be underestimated.
5. Cooperation. Working closely with partners and informed actors cannot only leave a positive impact on one’s own efforts. It can also be an opportunity to engage local and regional actors to benefit mutually and to ascertain a solidly rooted project base. International cooperation is fundamental in modern science and scholarship.
6. Continuity. Forging new paths in a barely known territory often takes longer than two or three years, the usual lengths of project funding. Mistakes must be allowed as well as changes of direction, but an overall continuity should be upheld.
7. Centres/clusters. Research initiatives can be improved by bringing together outstanding experts from similar fields. While this should not result in an isolationist approach, the exchange and merged competence can be a source of stronger results. In times of increasing (international) cooperation, centres and clusters appear a sensible institutional response.
With these seven ‘C’s in mind, a further development and improvement of support initiatives and funding mechanisms seems possible. It will without a doubt pose a challenge to guarantee their proper inclusion and observance in the future – but I am convinced the effort should be invested. In this model, creativity only ranks as one component amongst others. The differentiating trait compared with the others may be that achieving and maintaining a culture of creativity is not at all straightforward. On the contrary, it is full of paradoxes and contradictions. Whilst every institution, not least for securing its own survival, has to insist that its members adhere to its rules, quality standards, etc, the creation of new ideas ultimately is about breaking the rules, fighting against common wisdom, and in particular for its leadership about being tolerant to errors made. Epistemologically speaking, radically new ideas can often not be phrased in terms of the initial question, and the openness for ‘fresh thinking’ is not only required by those who produce new ideas, but also by those who are expected to pick them up.
The prerequisites given for establishing a true culture of creativity may nevertheless not appeal to everyone. There may also be different ways of not falling into despair, or at least finding a way out of it by waiting for the right moment of inspiration, which all of us will know when preparing for an occasion like this: last minute panic.
The Way Ahead
No doubt the recent initiatives on excellence have induced a new dynamic into the European higher education and research environment. The quite substantial additional funds provided have helped to overcome a lot of stumbling blocks with respect to long overdue changes and reforms. However, there is a serious danger that many of these financial and strategic efforts will be wasted, if governments – and university leaders – do not ensure more reliable, high trust modes of long-term funding for teaching and research.
In our rapidly changing, increasingly globalised world, we are confronted with huge problems ranging from local wars and regional conflicts, mass migration, and terrorist attacks all the way through to earthquakes, pandemics, climate change, and financial instabilities. Many of these issues can only be dealt with in an adequate way through increasing our knowledge base. Universities as strongholds of research and training need to re-contextualise themselves and pay attention to the expectations of other stakeholders, their fears and anxieties as well as their hopes for results and solutions. At the same time, the public at large, and politicians in particular, must acknowledge the fact that the search for fundamentally new knowledge operates under highly fragile, risky and uncertain conditions. In many instances the researchers cannot immediately deliver the straightforward answers, forecasts, or solutions we all would like to see so urgently. It can also be a fine line between too strong a demand for output and a constructive encouragement of risk-taking in order to achieve innovative results. The prior may lead to the presentation of unsubstantiated data; the latter may be an important motivation on the path to research success. Some related challenges have recently also been described by Science magazine’s editor-in-chief, Marcia McNutt, from the editor’s and publisher’s point of view.Reference McNutt8
During the next 10 to 20 years (this we can say without consulting a crystal ball or involving witchcraft) we will see quite dramatic changes in our societies. Future growth and social welfare will increasingly rely on knowledge-intensive products and services. We can also, particularly in view of the demographic development in Germany and most other European countries, expect to be faced with the completely new challenge of how an ageing continent can actually maintain its capacity to innovate intensely. In this respect there is still a lot to learn for European research policy-makers and actors in science because quality assurance, foresight activities, priority-setting, and strategic decision-making will become even more important in the future. Given the overall critical state of affairs, it is by no means easy to maintain a sense of optimism. But that is what is required by universities as well as funders such as foundations, at least in the sense of one of my favourite sayings about the difference between a pessimist and an optimist: ‘An optimist knows how bad the world is. A pessimist has to go through the experience of evil over and over again.’
If Europe wants to achieve real progress, we will have to move even more from short-term, low trust modes of operation to more rigorous, ex ante assessments and selection processes, which lead to more stable, medium- to long-term commitments. Despite the many flaws and failures that do occur in our universities, the answer cannot be to introduce ever more and ever tighter reporting and control mechanisms. To my mind, we rather need a leap of faith based on high trust principles that allow for some thorough rethinking of common wisdom and for conducting research in unknown territories and ‘off the beaten track’ areas. Of course, it does not suffice to simply provide more time and space for creativity. As many outstanding research institutions, such as Rockefeller University and almost all US research universities, the Max-Planck-Society, the Wellcome Trust, or Howard Hughes Medical Institute (to name but a few), are demonstrating, it is a conditio sine qua non to rigorously invest time and expertise in assessing the candidate’s performance so far, the leadership qualities, and the potential for future ground-breaking research. Only if all of these aspects and the consistency of the candidate’s principles, beliefs, values, and actions provide a sufficiently coherent picture of his or her personality, should we go about hiring or supporting the new person. If not, we should not refrain from searching anew for the best possible person.
But once we have made the appointment, we should see to it that the candidate selected can work under optimal conditions at the frontiers of knowledge, for at least five to seven years undisturbed by other assessments than the ones made anyhow by the funding agencies to which he or she will apply for hopefully at least medium-term grants. If we do not reshape our systems of assessment and accountability in the direction of high-trust modes of operation, we will miss, at least that is what I fear, important opportunities for achieving breakthroughs in basic research and harvesting their potential for innovative developments. Ultimately, these knowledge gains provide the foundations on which tomorrow’s world will be built.
At a time when the creation, distribution, and absorption of new knowledge are happening almost simultaneously, many conventional arrangements and modes of operation become fragile. Buzzwords such as ‘e-learning’, ‘e-research’, ‘virtual laboratories’, ‘e-science’, ‘digital humanities’, ‘self-publishing’, ‘open innovation’ or ‘data donation’ may just indicate the direction in which we are already moving. No doubt, the Internet and its vast repertoire of possibilities will continue to extend the boundaries of scientific and scholarly knowledge.
Obviously, it will also reframe the boundary conditions under which our institutions are operating. Not only will libraries and bookstores be transformed into communications and media centres, but also administrative and decision-making processes will be affected by the opportunities provided on electronic platforms, and so on. Given the current economic crisis and the fact that in many countries conventional sources of money are drying up, we can already come across several attempts on the Internet to develop new platforms for fund-raising. Donation platforms such as ‘ASHOKA. Innovators for the Public’ or ‘betterplace.org’ invite everyone on the Internet to join them in ‘Investing in new solutions for our world’s toughest problems’. The website of the ‘Open Genius Project’ explicitly states: ‘Our mission is to connect people and researchers, for the sake of alleviating academic poverty.’
According to the protagonists of ‘Open Genius’ and the ‘betterplace lab’ this kind of crowdfunding and collaboration is not just a recent trend, but represents a powerful channel with engaged communities in all parts of the world capable of generating a critical mass of data, economic, and knowledge resources with the scope to source science projects. And in this respect I agree with them. Crowdfunding and mobile methods of support and collaboration are there to stay. It will be the task of universities, funding agencies, and private foundations alike to position themselves in this rapidly changing funding landscape, in particular with a view to quality assurance and framework conditions for accommodating these new opportunities within their respective institution. As the ‘betterplace lab’ has quite poignantly put it in its ‘Trendreport 2013’: ‘Knowledge entails the power [and I would add: the obligation] to do good.’
In an institution such as a university, which is characterised by a wide array of only loosely coupled units of operation, it is virtually impossible to simply impose new directions. Transformational and ‘creative’ leadership begins with listening to the various stakeholders, takes enormous amounts of commitment and communication efforts, builds strong and trustful relationships and, if successful, it culminates in the creation of the right conditions under which its members can realise their highest aspirations. I am hopeful that some of our shared considerations on these grand questions relating to ‘Europe’s strive for excellence’ will contribute to a sensible and successful way forward. In the end, creative researchers as well as all actors in the university, foundation, and support field will ever so often have to be reminded (or to remind themselves) of the following statement by Samuel Beckett: ‘Ever tried, ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.’
Acknowledgement
This article is an edited and abridged version of the plenary lecture presented on 17 September 2013 on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the Academia Europaea at Wroclaw.
Wilhelm Krull is Secretary General of the Volkswagen Foundation, one of the largest private research funding institutions in Europe. He is currently also the Chairman of the Board of the German Association of Foundations and a member of the Boards of Regents of several Max Planck Institutes. Since the mid-1980s he has been involved in research policy-making in many countries throughout the world. His experience in research evaluation ranges from systemic assessments of major research organisations in Germany, France, Ireland, and South Africa all the way up to the monitoring and evaluation of EU Framework Programmes. He is currently chairing a committee to evaluate the performance of the Danish National Research Foundation over the past ten years. As of 2012, Dr Krull is also serving as a member of the Research, Innovation, and Enterprise Council of the Prime Minister of Singapore.
