This chapter presents the results of interviews that were conducted with science advisors and experts involved in the work of NordForsk’s programme committees. The focus of the interviews was on the concept of Nordic added value in terms of its familiarity, definition, operationalisation and assessment. In addition, the potential strengths and challenges of Nordic research co-operation were discussed during the interviews.
3.1 Background and method
The expert interviews were conducted with 17 science advisors and other science experts who had been or were involved in NordForsk’s programme committees as of spring 2022. Invitations were sent by email to 26 recipients, of whom 65% responded. The semi-structured interviews were conducted in October and November 2022. The majority of the interviews were conducted via video link, but a few respondents preferred to answer in writing. The interviews were recorded and partially transcribed to complement the notes that were taken during the interviews. The responses were analysed qualitatively by using thematic and qualitative content analysis.
Members of NordForsk’s programme committees generally represent science experts from national research funding organisations from the Nordic and Baltic countries and are thus an important stakeholder group for the analysis of Nordic added value. The principle of Nordic added value is present in the work of the programme committees from the implementation and preparatory work of the research programmes to the assessment of project proposals and monitoring activities. Funding applications are always evaluated by an international peer review panel on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals. The programme committees make funding proposals based on the peer review, but in situations where the proposed projects are of equal merit, Nordic added value is taken into account.
The science advisors and experts consulted for this study were selected with the assistance of NordForsk so that they would represent a balanced range of countries, programmes and organisations. Most represented national science funding organisations in the Nordic and Baltic countries, in which they had a wide variety of roles and responsibilities. Some of the interviewees also had prominent academic backgrounds.
The interviewees represented 14 different NordForsk programmes or calls and some were members in more than one programme committee or call. The experts had been involved in different ways in the programme cycles. Some stated that they had been involved in the development of programmes or calls from the outset in their national research funding organisations, while others had been appointed to their role at a later stage.
Some of the interviewees had extensive experience of collaborating at a Nordic level in the context of research co-operation, while others had been in their current role for a shorter period of time. Some interviewees also had experience of other forms of Nordic research co-operation, for example through bilateral co-operation, the Arctic Council or other contacts.
3.2 Defining “Nordic added value”
Familiarity with the concept
The concept of Nordic added value was familiar to the interviewees mainly through the formal Nordic research co-operation that takes place under NordForsk. A couple of interviewees, who had long-standing experience of Nordic research co-operation, also remembered the concept or its Scandinavian equivalents from a longer ago. Although one interviewee recalled that the concept had initially caused some confusion, for example when reading funding applications, the experts felt that the concept is generally well established and visible in many contexts today. The concept was reported not to have been a subject of any particular discussion in the work of the programme committees but taken largely for granted. At the same time, however, a couple of interviewees noted that the meaning of the concept is not always clear.
A few interviewees stressed the central role of the concept Nordic added value in all stages of the work of the programme committees, from identifying potential themes and preparing programmes to assessing applications. For example, one interviewee referred to Nordic added value as a “guiding star”, referring to the central consideration of why a research programme is worth executing in a Nordic context and what the Nordic input or perspective is on different topics. The concept was also more widely recognised as a justification for the existence of NordForsk as an institution. At the same time, however, many experts stressed that Nordic research co-operation and funding decisions are based on the scientific quality and the work of the international peer review panels. Nordic added value can become decisive in situations where applications are on a completely equal footing.
There was also a common consent among interviewees that the concept of Nordic added value is naturally linked to science policy objectives. In this context, Nordic added value was seen to resemble the science policy objective to, for example, promote equality and the careers of young researchers. Taking a step further, one expert also discussed the concept of Nordic added value in terms of broader formal Nordic co-operation, which ultimately aims to promote Nordic co-operation and support the creation of added value. The concept was thus recognised as having a political function or value as part of a policy-oriented framework that justifies conducting research at a Nordic level and, more broadly, Nordic co-operation.
Different approaches to defining Nordic added value
When asked how the experts then defined the concept of Nordic added value, some approached the definition simply through individual examples or existing definitions of activities that generate Nordic added value. Some also referred to the current definition of Nordic added value available on the NordForsk website, which was perceived as comprehensive and clear, especially for researchers. A few interviewees also approached the task of defining the concept in a more general way, defining it as being essentially about co-operation and adding value to the national level through phrases such as “being stronger together” or being “more than the sum of its parts”.
Many experts emphasised the added value of Nordic co-operation based on the strong similarities between Nordic societies, which was seen as an important element as the starting point of the research, for the way in which research co-operation is carried out and for the research impact. On the other hand, a few respondents underlined that there are also differences within the Nordic countries, which makes Nordic comparisons particularly interesting. In this context, the benefits of Nordic research co-operation were seen as arising from a suitable contrast or from having something that is different, but not too different.
At the same time, however, many interviewees stressed the situational and relative nature of the concept, meaning that the definition of Nordic added value depends largely on who you ask. From a scientific perspective, the experts emphasised that Nordic added value can mean different things in different programmes or within different disciplines, meaning that the concept should always be shaped according to specific programmes and calls. Several experts exemplified this need by drawing a distinction between the social sciences and humanities, and the natural sciences, technology and engineering, and emphasising how Nordic added value can be defined in different ways from the perspective of these different fields. For example, in the natural sciences, technology and engineering, the concept may be defined as something more concrete, referring for example to the building of critical mass or sharing of infrastructures, while in the social sciences and humanities, Nordic added value may be much more abstract and based on uniquely Nordic premises and phenomena.
Nordic added value as a multidimensional concept
The ways in which the interviewees defined Nordic added value often reflected a certain two-way thinking, which was, however, expressed in varying ways depending on the interviewees’ fields of expertise. In simplified terms, this way of thinking referred to the need to define Nordic added value both in terms of what Nordicness or the Nordic perspective brings to research and what research brings to the Nordic countries. This perspective emphasises the subtle, yet important, distinction between research co-operation generating added value and the Nordic dimension adding value to something that already exists. In this context, the latter can be perceived as the already top-quality research that is conducted at a national level, but which benefits from collaboration with Nordic partners.
One formulation used in the interviews to clarify this distinction was the division of added value into “input” and “output values”. Using this terminology, “input value” refers to what Nordicness as a framework brings to the research, influencing, for example, which research topics or themes are chosen, which common Nordic priorities or challenges are identified, or which preconditions already exist for the practical realisation of collaborative efforts. “Output values”, on the other hand, refer to the impact of research co-operation, which the interviewees almost without exception divided into scientific and societal added value.
In the interviews, the idea of “input values” were divided into concrete/material dimensions such as similar data infrastructures and the pooling of resources and knowledge, and abstract/immaterial dimensions such as similar social structures, shared values, shared cultural and linguistic heritage and similar climate/geography. For example, shared values, language and culture were readily seen as providing an important basis for trust-based and effective co-operation.
“Output values” were, however, more emphasised in the interviews and especially the goal to generate scientific added value through collaborative effort. This referred to the creation and strengthening of networks and the promotion of quality, renewal and impact of science. The societal added value, on the other hand, referred to the impact of research on Nordic societies. For example, Nordic research co-operation was seen to be able to contribute to policy-making at the national level. In this context, the similarity of the Nordic societies was highlighted as a particularly important precondition and benefit for facilitating the application of research results at the national level.
Some interviewees tended to stress the societal added value generated by Nordic research co-operation particularly because it is ultimately funded by Nordic taxpayers. Therefore, it was often considered important that the added value generated by research co-operation is returned to the societal level.
Challenges in defining Nordic added value
The experts reported that, in practice, they had not experienced challenges in the operationalisation of the concept of Nordic added value, although a couple of interviewees noted that the concept could be discussed more consciously in the programme committees. In reference to defining Nordic added value, the experts tended to emphasise the importance of the project design phase and paying attention to why a project should be implemented at the Nordic level. For example, if high-quality research on a particular topic is already being done at the national level, it should be considered what is to be gained from combining national efforts. Alternatively, one could consider why a specific topic needs to be studied at the Nordic level rather than the national or European level.
At a more theoretical level, concepts were acknowledged as posing certain challenges. For example, a couple of interviewees highlighted the challenges that can arise when Nordicness is taken as an unquestioned and granted element of joint action. For example, one expert pointed out while abstract input values as a basis for action may seem easy to define, they can prove to be quite slippery in practice. If the value or benefit of the Nordic dimension for research co-operation is conceptualised as the shared values, cultural and linguistic heritage, ideas of welfare and many other things that are often associated with the Nordic countries, how do we then define these in reality? As noted earlier, some respondents emphasised that alongside the presumed similarities, the small differences that become apparent because of the many similarities can also make Nordic co-operation particularly fruitful.
Another interviewee pointed out that if the assumption of similarity is seen to frame the definition of Nordic added value, there is a risk that joint co-operation becomes limited within “closed clubs”, which seek to conserve and cement the ways in which things are done and thus hamper research development. While there are always limits and boundaries to be drawn in research, the interviewee stressed that research should be about continuous learning and pushing knowledge forward. This is where, for example, collaboration and platforms outside the Nordic countries are particularly important.
When the importance of understanding the generalising and fluid meanings of concepts were stressed, it was also deemed difficult to come up with any strict definitions for Nordic added value. For example, one interviewee expressed that concepts are good when they are generative, but challenges occur when they become ways of policing boundaries. The expert pointed out that concepts should rather be considered as “empty signifiers”, which have no agreed meanings and for which one cannot get too hung up on definition.[i] Another expert added that Nordic-level research co-operation must actively follow the development of both research and society and be prepared to revise and redefine concepts.
Building on these challenges, the experts highlighted the importance of paying attention to investigator and project-driven perspectives in defining the concept of Nordic added value. When attempting to define the concept, it was seen as important to trust the researchers’ views and leave room for creativity in order to support and reinforce the renewal of research.
Lost in translation?
The expert interviews were mainly conducted in English and Finnish, but the Scandinavian concepts nordisk nytta and nordiskt mervärde were also discussed with some of the interviewees. These concepts were generally considered as both synonymous with each other and as translations of the English-language concept of Nordic added value.
The interviewees reported that they had not reflected on or paid attention to any translation issues in reference to these concepts. However, when the two different Scandinavian-language concepts were brought up in the interviews, a couple of native speakers of Scandinavian languages acknowledged that the concepts do not in fact mean exactly the same thing. As noted in the previous chapter, when reflecting on the issue, the interviewees saw nordisk nytta as a broader concept in the Nordic conceptual hierarchy than nordiskt mervärde. Nordisk nytta was interpreted more readily as the benefit of an action and nordiskt mervärde as more the tangible outcome.
In the case of nordisk nytta, the interviewees found it somewhat difficult or awkward to translate into English as the translation “Nordic benefit” was not seen as conveying the same idea or as being as easily understood as Nordic added value.
3.3 Nordic added value as a regional concept
One way in which many interviewees approached the definition of Nordic added value was to think about it in terms of regionality, making it a relational concept. This perspective emerged in the interviews as a very broad and varied theme. At its simplest, it could refer to the consideration of which countries are involved in research co-operation and the range that is set in the projects. Most often, however, the experts approached Nordic added value in a comparative way, reflecting Nordic co-operation in relation to the national and European dimensions.
Nordic added value to the national level
When Nordic co-operation was discussed as something adding value to the national level, this added value was constructed in the interviews primarily in terms of efficiency and resources. For example, one interviewee articulated that the added value of Nordic co-operation for the national level is the ability to address issues that could not be tackled as meaningfully and effectively by individual Nordic countries.
In contrast, resources were discussed more in terms of constraints. For example, the experts highlighted how from the perspective of national funders, decisions to participate in Nordic co-operation are often a resource issue, as national funders must first and foremost ensure that funding is sufficient for national level initiatives.
From the researchers’ point of view, the experts saw no particular issues in reference to choosing between the level at which research is conducted. For example, one interviewee said that researchers do not often see any need to choose one over another as everyone applies for national funding by default. Emphasising the priority of the national level, another expert gave a practical example of how an overlap at the national and Nordic level for similar research topics had shown a clear preference for the national level among researchers.
The Nordic and the European dimension
The relationship between the Nordic and the European level was significantly more discussed in the interviews. Like the relationship between the national and the Nordic levels, the relationship between these regional levels was built on the idea of the positive accumulative effect of joint action. Instead of emphasising efficiency, however, the relationship between the Nordic and European levels was more readily discussed in terms of the level of higher scientific impact and research development
The expert comments on the relationship between the Nordic and European levels in the research context challenged the intrinsic value of having specific regional research areas, but rather stressed the need to examine them critically. Above all, the interviewees emphasised the importance of paying attention to the added value of co-operation in terms of quality and research development. In simple terms, this refers to a critical evaluation of which topics benefit from being examined at a Nordic level and which at a European level in order to first and foremost ensure high quality and renewal in science.
In the social sciences and humanities, for instance, the Nordic countries were often pointed out as a more natural research context because of their similarities. Therefore, it was considered short-sighted to overlook the Nordic perspective just for the sake of engaging in European or other international research co-operation. As an example, several interviewees mentioned the educational sciences as a specific field where the Nordic dimension is central due to the similarity of the Nordic education systems. Co-operation in the field of education was also not considered as advanced internationally.
On the contrary, in the fields of the natural sciences, technology and engineering, it was seen as less meaningful to limit collaborative efforts to the Nordic countries. For example, one interviewee pointed out that while there is concrete Nordic added value in sharing infrastructure or other resources across the Nordic region, at a more abstract level, limiting co-operation to Nordic partners does not necessarily create scientific added value. Another interviewee also pointed out that European research co-operation is much more progressive in certain fields. Therefore, collaboration at a European level can help to establish a quicker transition and broaden the research fields.
The interviewees placed substantial emphasis on similarities when discussing the rationale of acting at a Nordic level, but when discussing the Nordic and European levels in relation to each other, they rather emphasised differences. For example, at the European level, there were seen to be major differences in the ways in which societies, but also universities and research funding organisations work, which can make it difficult to reach a common understanding. At the same time, however, many of the interviewees emphasised that the Nordic and European levels should not be seen as being mutually exclusive or competing, but rather as complementary. They reminded that in the same way as research at the European level addresses issues that are important for the Nordic countries, research conducted in the Nordic region can also make a significant contribution to the European context.
Within the European context, the respondents constructed Nordic research co-operation prominently as one of many regional perspectives. For example, one interviewee pointed out, by way of comparison, that one might as well consider what is “Southern European value” when the large and economically powerful countries in the Mediterranean region co-operate with each other. In this way, all sub-regional co-operation in a European context was seen as having an added value as it can strengthen the regions and increase their power and influence in the European landscape.
Nordic-Baltic added value
One particular regional perspective that was discussed during some interviews was the role of Nordic co-operation in the Baltic context. This is an important aspect in the context of official Nordic co-operation as the Nordic Council of Ministers has co-operated closely with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania since the early 1990s. From this particular Nordic-Baltic perspective, the idea of Nordic added value was approached either as an extended concept that includes the Baltic countries or alternatively through a separate concept of “Nordic-Baltic added value”, forming a regional co-operation format of its own. One interviewee recognised Nordic added value is a fluid term especially in relation to the Baltic countries, because it can be used to both include or exclude them.
The idea of Nordic-Baltic regional co-operation also generated multidimensional meanings of the idea of the added value of research co-operation in the interviews. For example, from the Baltic perspective, the rationale of co-operating with the Nordic countries was conceptualised through similarities such as similar challenges or shared climatic, cultural and other elements that exist between the Nordic and the Baltic countries. Similar data infrastructures and other opportunities to pool resources were also mentioned. Furthermore, the Nordic relevance could also be motivated at a more abstract level as part of ongoing regional and national identity building processes. For example, the Baltic countries were discussed as being able to seek to position themselves towards the Nordic region instead of being labelled as part of the Eastern European sphere of influence. This was seen to provide a strategic advantage for the Baltic countries as a stepping stone into wider global co-operation.
Further underlining the multidimensionality of the concept of Nordic added value, an additional perspective that emerged in the interviews was the question of what kind of added value does the Nordic dimension generate for the Baltic countries and vice versa. One interviewee recognised that Nordic added value may easily sound like a concept that only refers to the added value generated for the Nordic countries, although the Baltic countries should also benefit from the joint action. As examples of the benefits that the Nordic dimension brings to the Baltic countries, both scientific and societal impact were mentioned. For example, the potential impact of joint Nordic-Baltic action for the Baltic countries was discussed in terms of the development of culture, society and economy.
In reference to the added value that the Baltic countries may bring to the Nordic countries through co-operation, the interviewees underlined the importance of specific areas of excellence in which the Baltic countries are pioneers or which are being strategically developed. For example, Estonia’s role as a global pioneer in the digitalisation of the public sector was introduced as a particularly good example of the added value of Nordic-Baltic research co-operation.
Nordic added value for non-Nordic partners
In addition to the Baltic countries, NordForsk-funded programmes involving other non-Nordic partners such as the UK or Japan were also repeatedly mentioned in the interviews. Experts had very positive experiences of such programmes and towards the inclusion of non-Nordic partners in Nordic research co-operation.
When discussing the added value of collaborating with non-Nordic partners under the auspices of NordForsk, the experts’ views focused above all on ensuring high scientific quality and research impact. For example, one interviewee pointed out that research rarely has national boundaries and that top experts in particular fields can more often be found outside the Nordic countries. In such cases, it is not purposeful to limit joint action to the Nordic countries, but co-operation with non-Nordic partners can significantly strengthen the quality of research in the Nordic countries.
In co-operation with non-Nordic partners, the importance of looking at added value in a multidimensional way was also stressed. For example, it was mentioned that one added value for the Nordic countries of such co-operation is that the Nordic countries can benefit from the niche competences of certain countries or regions. In addition, the Nordic countries were seen as benefiting from the increased impact of Nordic science through international co-operation.
Non-Nordic partners, on the other hand, were seen to benefit from Nordic co-operation by receiving a so called “package deal”. This referred to the idea that through official Nordic research co-operation, non-Nordic partners would receive the whole region as their partner instead of having to implement co-operative schemes through bilateral agreements or other arrangements.
European Added Value
As noted in the previous chapter, the idea of “European Added Value” is an important conceptual relative to the English-language term “Nordic added value”. When the experts were asked of their familiarity with the principle of European Added Value, it emerged as largely less familiar. This was even despite the fact that many of the interviewed science advisors had experience of European research co-operation as well.
When reflecting on the concept, the experts agreed that it seems to be a similar concept to Nordic added value. At the same time, a couple of experts elaborated that European Added Value is a broader concept because Europe is a much larger entity. European Added Value was also seen as a much more strategic concept with a strong economic dimension.
Reflecting on the two concepts from a researcher’s perspective, one interviewee pointed out that it would be challenging if European Added Value and Nordic added value were not in some way compatible and harmonious with each other as researchers may well apply for both Nordic and European research funding. However, if different goals are pursued or produced through these two different concepts, it was seen as more likely to just cause confusion among researchers.
Nordic research co-operation as a springboard to European research funding
Several experts emphasised the added value of Nordic research co-operation through a metaphor of a springboard. Stressing the synergy between the Nordic and the European levels, this refers to the basis and support provided by Nordic research co-operation for establishing European-level collaborative initiatives and even securing European funding through, for example, the European Union’s flagship research and innovation programme Horizon Europe. This was perceived as particularly valuable because of higher funding levels and the prestige of conducting research at the European level.
When providing examples of how researchers involved in Nordic research co-operation had received funding at the European level, many experts stressed the importance of networks. Nordic projects were framed as important in enabling the establishment of new contacts, which, in turn, were often seen important in facilitating the establishment of wider networks within the European system.
Apart from the direct added value of receiving funding, the potential of Nordic research co-operation in facilitating access to European funding was seen as adding value to the Nordic region also more indirectly by creating jobs for researchers, increasing knowledge and experience, and promoting networking among researchers.
As a particular challenge relating to European research funding, experts stressed that due to the lack of time and resources that researchers often face, many cannot compete for both Nordic and European funding, but have to decide where to invest their time and resources. This accentuates the importance of paying attention to how to make Nordic research co-operation attractive.
3.4 Research impact and assessment
One broader theme that was much discussed in the interviews was how Nordic added value can or should be evaluated or measured. This linked to broader questions on how the effects and impact of research can be evaluated in general. As some interviewees pointed out, for decades, emphasis has been increasingly directed at the evaluation of the effects and impact of research and that fulfilling this task is not easy in any research funding activity.
Two levels of evaluation
When assessing the impact of Nordic research co-operation, the experts highlighted the need to firstly pay attention to the different levels on which research is expected to have an impact, and secondly to the different levels in which added value is generated.
In reference to the former, the experts agreed that the evaluation of research should take into account both academic impact and societal impact. These were considered as the two main dimensions within which Nordic added value can be assessed. For example, one expert summarised that added value is to be found in collaborative efforts that reinforce the quality and impact of research in the Nordic countries, and that it is this that research co-operation should strengthen. They added that it should benefit both the research system and society. Despite the importance of societal impact, the experts tended to emphasise the academic impact. For example, Nordic research collaboration was seen as generating particular added value for the research community through the creation and maintenance of collaborative relationships, mobility and networks, while also with the reminder that this is not something limited only to Nordic-level research co-operation. The added value generated for the academic community was seen to have far-reaching implications, especially in cases where the collaboration between Nordic partners continues through other funding schemes.
Regarding the second point, the interviewees highlighted that when assessing the potential added value of research co-operation, it is important to take into account the different ways in which added value is defined depending on the different disciplines, the conditions of individual projects and the stakeholders involved. This creates a challenge in terms of assessing the impact and effectiveness of Nordic research co-operation because of the simultaneous existence of different perceptions of what Nordic added value is.
Carrying out the evaluation
How should the evaluation then be put into practice, especially when attempting to evaluate the specific Nordic added value of research projects? The interviewees stressed that the evaluation of research impact is fine science, reaching from the assessment of project proposals to the evaluation of the ways in which completed research influenced both the scientific community and society.
Nordic added value was represented in the interviews primarily as a qualitative concept, which makes the evaluation of the added value an especially difficult task in contrast with quantitative results, which are easier to analyse comparatively and also to communicate. In addition, one interviewee pointed out that the Nordic added value of research projects is often difficult to assess also because the potential added value that the collaborative effort will generate is only an estimate and the impact becomes visible only much later once the projects have already been completed.
Although the monitoring of the research impact was considered as highly important, its implementation often depends on the resources available. Examples of qualitative evaluation and monitoring methods mentioned in the interviews include self-evaluation and narrative analysis, which, however, require a longer timeframe for analysis. They can also present a challenge in terms of how to provide guidance in a way that ensures that everyone understands the task the same way. For example, project leaders and researchers may understand research impact differently to the way the funding organisation meant it.
In the context of research evaluation, critical perspectives also surfaced regarding, for example, the need to evaluate research in a context where it is already measured and evaluated in many different ways, not all of which were always seen as relevant. From this perspective, it was deliberated whether the focus of the evaluation of Nordic added value should be input values rather than output values and the results of the joint action. In other words, it was asked whether the evaluation should focus more on the preconditions and the specific Nordic dimension of research than concrete outcomes.
3.5 Strengths, challenges and opportunities
Nordic research co-operation was also deliberated in terms of its strengths and challenges, which adds an additional dimension to the reflection on Nordic added value. In addition, the question of the relevance of Nordic co-operation in a contemporary global political context was also brought up in the interviews.
Similarities as a strength
When asked about the particular strengths of Nordic co-operation, several interviewees highlighted the long-standing ties between the Nordic countries and their shared regional and cultural characteristics as a key strength of Nordic co-operation. This was seen as a particular asset because it creates a basis for a certain shared mindset. From the perspective of science advisors, this was reflected in concrete ways through the benefits it provides for carrying out the work, such as the ability to agree on common objectives and to design the research programmes accordingly. The ease of collaboration that stems from similarities was thus seen as creating efficiency. Efficiency, in turn, can translate into cost-effectiveness, because it prevents practical collaboration from becoming too cumbersome and expensive.
Experts also generally agreed that the Nordic countries face similar challenges, which, in turn, require common solutions. This was seen as achievable because of the many similarities between the Nordic societies. Research co-operation was also cited as a particularly good tool for responding to this need. As a concrete example of shared challenges, the geopolitical and security-related issues following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 were discussed.
Benefits of scale
Scale was also seen as another Nordic strength in the context of research co-operation. However, the issue of scale was approached from different perspectives. For example, co-operation between a smaller number of countries was perceived as beneficial because then individual countries do not have to meet the expectations and needs of a larger set of countries, as is the case with EU co-operation.
On the other hand, Nordic co-operation makes the Nordic countries seem larger than their individual size. This was seen as beneficial, for example, in terms of appearing together in global arenas and in terms of increased effectiveness. One interviewee elaborated that the further away from the Nordic countries one goes, the more readily the Nordic countries are seen as one front. This makes the Nordic countries more attractive to co-operate with than through the establishment of bilateral agreements.
Disciplinary strengths
Nordic strengths were also discussed in the interviews in terms of disciplinary strengths. For example, Nordic strengths can be particularly evident in areas where there has traditionally been a high level of co-operation. In addition, in areas where shared data and infrastructures are used prominently, the benefits of co-operation can also become more evident.
One expert also highlighted trust in science as a particular Nordic strength at both the national and Nordic level. The recognition of the importance of research and science at a Nordic level was deemed to be particularly visible due to the formal support of the Nordic Council of Ministers.
Prioritisation and attractiveness of Nordic research co-operation as a challenge
One of the challenges of Nordic research co-operation that some experts highlighted was the need for a stronger will and stronger resources to operate at a Nordic level. While Nordic co-operation was seen to have a reasonably good formal structure and foundation, a couple of interviewees raised the need to pay attention to the generation of genuine Nordic added value rather than just something where the interests of individual countries take precedence. One interviewee also recognised that although the benefits of Nordic co-operation are often recognised at a general Nordic level, they are not always prioritised.
From this perspective, a challenge for Nordic research co-operation is how to increase attractiveness and visibility. In addition to requiring time and money, another particular challenge was that Nordic co-operation is easily marginalised especially in comparison to European research funding projects that offer more money and prestige.
Differences at the national level
One particular challenge that emerged in the interviews as an issue between the individual Nordic countries were the challenges of research funding and fragmentation of the funding landscape. As an example, several interviewees mentioned challenges relating to the common pot system, especially in terms of fairness. For example, one country’s simultaneous under-investing and outperforming in terms of research funding was generally not perceived as being fair to others. Many interviewees mentioned Denmark as a particular example of this challenge, because it was felt that the country was not allocating the expected resources to Nordic research co-operation. Nevertheless, the benefit that small countries may receive from the common pot system was not questioned in the interviews.
The virtual common pot funding system, whereby the national research funding organisations decide individually on their portion of the funding was perceived as a fairer system. Alternatively, some form of equal-share funding requirement was also suggested as a solution to these challenges.
Another challenge at the national level that was raised in the interviews was the difference between the Nordic countries in their opportunities to participate in Nordic research co-operation. For example, smaller countries with limited resources have to think carefully about what they can get involved in, in a way that still benefits them. On the other hand, Nordic co-operation was seen to be more time-efficient than, for example, bilateral agreements. In addition, it was seen to be more meaningful to channel certain co-operation through the Nordic co-operation framework.
Internationalisation of the academic community
The increasing internationalisation of societies and research communities in all fields and in all the Nordic countries was also mentioned in the interviews. In turn, this influences the ways in which Nordic added value should be defined and communicated.
While for those born and raised in the Nordic countries the added value of Nordic co-operation may be more self-evident, it was acknowledged not to be so for everyone. For example, for researchers coming from elsewhere, Nordic co-operation may not offer any particular added value compared to co-operation at the European or other international level. It was therefore cited as being essential to not only recognise that a specific Nordic added value is not a given for the research community as a whole, but also that Nordic research co-operation should be kept open to all without assumptions of certain preconceptions and understandings. A clear definition of the concept of Nordic added value and the provision of concrete examples to applicants were therefore stated to be especially important. Although internationalisation brings its own challenges, it was stressed that it should also be seen as an opportunity for research co-operation.
The role of the English language
Language questions were also discussed in many of the interviews. English was perceived to work well and inclusively as the language of Nordic research co-operation. Although the use of Scandinavian languages has traditionally been seen as valuable in Nordic co-operation due to their mutual intelligibility, several interviewees raised the point that the assumption of Scandinavian languages as the language of Nordic co-operation can also be counterproductive. For example, it was seen to potentially exclude or create thresholds for participation for those who do not speak Danish, Norwegian or Swedish as their native language. This was highlighted as an issue also for those who know one Scandinavian language, but do not speak it as their first language, in which case understanding other Scandinavian languages is not self-evident.
At the same time, it was also contemplated what would happen if the Scandinavian languages were no longer used in Nordic co-operation. For example, one interviewee stressed that the importance of language and mutual intelligibility should not be forgotten, as it constitutes the whole basis of what makes the Nordic countries so special, builds trust and facilitates co-operation. At the same time, another expert was of the opinion that linguistic realities should be accepted and that English should not be seen as inferior to the Scandinavian languages.
The new relevance of Nordic co-operation
Due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was topical at the time of the interviews, the experts were asked about their views on the role of Nordic co-operation in this broader global context. Nordic co-operation was generally perceived as being more relevant and valuable in the light of ongoing political developments and challenges. The unstable character of global co-operation was also considered to strengthen interest in Nordic co-operation. The increased interest in co-operating with close neighbours and allies was seen as natural in a situation of a perceived external threat. The Nordic countries were perceived as a reliable, secure and desirable context for co-operation, underlining the key role of shared values.
Some interviewees reported that the global situation had had a concrete impact on research co-operation through, for example, the termination of all co-operation with Russia. This had affected bilateral agreements, Nordic-Russian co-operation and Arctic research. The interviews suggested that Nordic co-operation may become more important in a context where the global political situation increasingly frames the activities of research funders and expert organisations.
This was also seen as a good moment to increase Nordic-level co-operation. In this context, it was stressed that this does not imply a need for closer co-operation between the Nordic countries, but rather a clearer appreciation of the similarities and the value of co-operation.
3.6 NordForsk as a platform for Nordic research co-operation
The role and importance of NordForsk as an enabling and facilitating institution for Nordic research co-operation emerged several times in the interviews. Attitudes, experiences and support for NordForsk were highly positive and it was perceived as the best instrument for co-ordinating Nordic research co-operation. One interviewee even called it a “hidden gem” in the funding system that could be used more, or as another interviewee put it, “we need more Nordic, not less”. NordForsk was perceived as fulfilling its mission well.
There were no significant comments on the forms of research funded by NordForsk. However, a couple of experts reflected more broadly on how the relatively small and narrow projects that are executed at a Nordic level create an interesting dynamic. On the one hand, small and non-repetitive projects require a lot of resources and are not always the most efficient, but on the other hand, putting money into stable repetitive research would appear somewhat pointless, as such forms already exist at the national and European level. One science expert deliberated that perhaps it is precisely the smaller projects, networks and co-operation that set the Nordic countries apart from the EU as they are instrumental in generating trust.
Providing an added layer to the discussion on Nordic added value, as an institute, NordForsk was also seen as generating added value for national funding organisations. One example of the added value of Nordic co-operation for a national funding organisation was the fact that NordForsk takes care of the practical implementation of the programmes, which does not require resources from national funding organisations. From a Baltic perspective, collaboration with NordForsk was also cited as providing certain institutional added value to a national research organisation through the opportunity to learn best practices.
A couple of science advisors also highlighted NordForsk’s role in contributing to the establishment and maintenance of networks between science advisors and experts from different Nordic countries. For example, the Nordic Heads of Research Councils (NORDHORCS), which is a committee consisting of the directors of the national research funding agencies in the Nordic countries, and the NOS organisations, which are joint committees for Nordic research councils in different fields, were both mentioned. The central role of the NOS organisations was stressed in particular due to their role as important fora for representatives of different national funding organisations to discuss topical issues on an equal footing. The NOS organisations were also perceived as valuable arenas for discussing research topics, leading at best to open invitation proposals.
Finally, the expert interviews touched upon different ways in which Nordic research co-operation may be developed and strengthened in the future. In general, the interviewees advocated for more Nordic research co-operation, but at the same time, it was acknowledged that there also needs to be more awareness of it. Another potential area for development that was suggested by an individual respondent was the more strategic use of Nordic research co-operation in areas where there is a need to break ground and prepare Nordic researchers for larger international collaborations. In addition, the importance of supporting the work of the programme committees and the relevance of including relevant non-Nordic partners in research programmes was stressed in the interviews.
3.7 Summary
This chapter has presented the results of the interviews conducted with members of NordForsk’s programme committees. The analysis shows that the Nordic added value principle is familiar to science experts and no major challenges have been experienced in the operationalisation of the concept in practice. Nevertheless, attempts to define Nordic added value highlight the relative character of the concept and how it can receive different meanings depending on the discipline, individual project or different stakeholders. In addition, Nordic added value emerges as a multidimensional concept, calling for a need to consider both the added value that the Nordic perspective gives to research and the added value that research gives to the Nordic region. As a specific input value or precondition, the similarities between Nordic societies and their shared cultural and linguistic heritage were highlighted as a contributing factor to research efficiency. In reference to the added value that research co-operation generates, Nordic added value was closely linked to both academic and societal impact, and the objective of Nordic research co-operation was perceived first and foremost to facilitate high scientific quality. This raised a number of critical aspects in relation to the reasons for acting at the Nordic level, which can be restrictive rather than enabling, especially in the context of research co-operation and in specific disciplines. From this point of view, identifying genuinely Nordic needs in the programme design phase and the ongoing importance of collaborating with non-Nordic partners stand out as particularly important.