A little more than a year ago, NordForsk granted funding to a research project examining the concept of Nordic added value. The results of the project are now published in a report written by Tuire Liimatainen from the Centre for Nordic Studies (CENS University of Helsinki) and part of the activities of the university hub ReNEW (Reimagining Norden in an Evolving World).
Read the report: Nordic added value in Nordic research co-operation. Concept and practice
Arne Flåøyen, Director of NordForsk, is very pleased with the report:
“This is an important report in several ways. Not only does it provide insight into the origins of the concept of ‘Nordic added value’ and how it is understood and used in the present, but it also provides guiding principles for future use. It will be of great help as we continue to create Nordic added value through Nordic research co-operation.”
New definition
Liimatainen starts by taking a historical approach and examines the origins of the term “Nordic added value” in Nordic co-operation in general and Nordic research co-operation in particular.
Based on her findings, Liimatainen devises that at policy level, the principle of Nordic added value can be defined as the positive effects of joint Nordic efforts that strengthen the Nordic region as a cultural and historical community, and as a locally and globally competitive and sustainable welfare society.
Differences and recommendations
The report shows the flexible, changing and adaptive nature of the concept of Nordic added value, meaning that the principle cannot be used in a static and normative manner throughout different sectors of Nordic co-operation nor within Nordic research co-operation.
The report lays out four recommendations for the future use of Nordic added value that aim at contributing to the continuation and renewal of Nordic research co-operation. The recommendations include the combination of strategic Nordic needs and high scientific quality, co-operation with non-Nordic partners, and review of evaluation methods.
Recommendations in the report
1. Strategic Nordic needs and high scientific quality
- The combined objective of facilitating high-quality research and creating Nordic added value requires the identification of particular Nordic needs and strategic areas of expertise when designing research programmes.
- The dual role of Nordic research co-operation as facilitating both high-quality research and strengthening the Nordic community needs to be more openly recognised.
- Collaboration with non-Nordic partners contributes to ensuring research excellence but requires a better recognition of the added value that the participating countries contribute to and receive from the collaboration.
2. Balance between strict criteria and flexibility
- Nordic added value is not a static concept and its operationalisation must strike a balance between clear guidelines and flexibility.
- It is important for researchers to reflec on Nordic added value to ensure the renewal of Nordic research co-operation.
3. Symmetric communication
- A holistic understanding of Nordic added value should be promoted in communication with different stakeholders and across research programmes.
- Discussion of the objectives of Nordic co-operation and more comparative knowledge of Nordic added value in the different institutions would be beneficial.
4. Review of evaluation methods
- Nordic added value is primarily a qualitative concept. Qualitative monitoring of research impact would therefore be beneficial alongside existing quantitative practices.
- The relative and multidimensional character of Nordic added value needs to be considered in the different stages of project evaluation and assessment.
Background for the report
NordForsk’s role is to create added value for the Nordic community and for the individual Nordic countries. In this way, NordForsk differs from the national, Nordic research councils. Therefore, NordForsk has now funded a research project to look more closely at how the concept of Nordic added value should be used in Nordic research, and how it is perceived by researchers and other recipients.
