Chapter 4: Participant survey

When looking at the definition of “Nordic added value”, researchers are another important group of stakeholders to be included in a critical examination of this concept. In addition to being actively engaged in Nordic level research collaboration, researchers and other project participants are also requested to define, articulate and assess Nordic added value in all stages of their research projects. At the same time, it has been noted that the concept of Nordic added value is not necessarily widely known or easily addressed among researchers, making it also difficult to evaluate what kind of Nordic added value the projects generate.

This chapter presents the results of the participant survey that was conducted as part of this research project. In the survey, the respondents were asked to evaluate statements about Nordic research co-operation, assess attributes describing Nordic research co-operation, identify relevant research activities that generate Nordic added value and answer open-ended questions about Nordic added value. The answers were analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. A summary of the analysis is presented below.

4.1 Background and method

The participant survey was conducted among the contact person and group leaders of NordForsk-funded research projects between 2018 and 2022 (as of June 2022). The web-based survey was sent out to the recipients in December 2022. An e-mail invitation with a link to the survey was sent out to a total of 368 project contact persons and group leaders, who were selected in co-operation with NordForsk representatives. 30 invitations bounced back due to inactive e-mail addresses and an additional five recipients were not reachable within the survey period. The recipients were invited to participate in the survey themselves, but project leaders were additionally asked to expand the invitation to their research groups, if possible.

Recipients were mainly involved in research projects within the fields of medical and health sciences, social sciences and natural sciences, some of which were also interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral by character. In addition, some recipients were affiliated to a research infrastructure hub programme and programmes involving both Nordic and non-Nordic countries.

A total of 79 respondents completed the survey. Dividing the number of completed survey responses by the number of invitations that were assumedly received by the selected participants, the response rate of the survey would be 23.7%. This falls within the range of typical response rates in online surveys although there is no information as to how many project leaders forwarded the invitation to the rest of their research groups. Assuming that some of the project leaders extended the invitation to their research groups, the resulting response rate is lower. The decision not to participate in a survey can commonly be explained by lack of time but does not disclose other reasons.

Based on the background information provided by the respondents, most respondents has been the group leader or country co-ordinator (39%) in their respective NordForsk-funded research activity, as shown in Table 2. One in four respondents (25%) selected the title of participant, implying that some project leaders may have disseminated the invitations to their research groups. However, only one doctoral student answered the survey, creating a certain sample bias in the survey data. For instance, the respondents were asked how many times they have been involved in NordForsk-funded research projects or activities, to which 67% answered once, 23% twice or three times, and 5% four times or more, implying that the respondents represented scholars who are already in more advanced stages of their careers. Furthermore, 5% of respondents was unsure how many times they have participated in NordForsk-funded activities.

The limited opportunities to reach early-stage researchers were also reflected in the distribution of current titles, which are presented in Table 3. Nearly half of the respondents (47%) were professors. In addition, 15% of the respondents had the title of either assistant, associate or adjunct professor.

The distribution of the country or the autonomous region that the respondents represented in their respective research activity is shown in Table 4. The largest share of respondents represented Sweden (34%), which is also the most populous country in the Nordic region, while the share of respondents from Denmark (16%), Finland (16%) and Norway (19%) was more even. There were no respondents from any of the autonomous regions, and the only Baltic respondents represented Latvia. The category “Other” consisted exclusively of respondents from the United Kingdom, which can be at least partly explained by the joint Nordic-UK research programmes on Migration and Integration, which started in 2019. In most of the research projects (66%), collaboration was limited to the Nordic countries, but in the projects involving partners from outside the Nordic countries, most common were the Baltic countries and the United Kingdom.

With regard to of the type of institution that the respondents represented in the NordForsk-funded research project, most respondents (68%) selected “University”, as can be seen in Table 5. Among the responses in the category “Other”, a cultural organisation, an NGO and a university hospital were specified as the type of institution represented in the research project.

Table 6 below shows the scientific areas, which were covered in the survey. The largest areas were the medical sciences (28%), the social sciences (27%) and the natural sciences (16%), which have also traditionally been the research areas with the largest share of NordForsk funding.

The gender distribution of the respondents was fairly even, with 53% of respondents identifying as men and 43% as women, while 4% of the respondents preferred not to provide information about their gender. The largest age group in the survey was those over 55 years old (38%) and second largest 45 to 54-year-olds (29%). This also reflects the overrepresentation of more senior scholars in the sample. The youngest respondents were between 25 and 34 years old (10%).

4.2 The value of Nordic research co-operation

In the survey, the respondents were asked to evaluate on a scale from 0 to 5 (0 = Do not know/no opinion, 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with various statements about Nordic research co-operation based on their personal experience in participating in a NordForsk-funded research project or activity. The respondents were first asked to evaluate the Nordic dimension of their research. Their answers are shown in Table 7.

The vast majority of the respondents less surprisingly agreed (33%) or strongly agreed (56%) with the statement that their research has a clear Nordic dimension. Furthermore, a clear majority of the respondents either agreed (25%) or strongly agreed (66%) that their research benefits from having a Nordic perspective.

A similar trend was observed for the statement “It is easy for me to define what kind of Nordic added value my research generates”, with 86% of the survey respondents stating that they either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. However, there was more deviation when asked if it was easy for the respondents to understand which phenomena are uniquely Nordic. The proportionally high number of answers in the category “Neither agree nor disagree” implies that there are certain ambiguities involved with this statement. This result may, for example, imply the sheer breadth of phenomena, which can be defined as uniquely Nordic, or the challenge of holding something as “uniquely” Nordic.

The second set of statements looked at the respondents’ opinions and experiences of the impact of Nordic research co-operation. The responses are shown in Table 8.

The respondents agreed or strongly agreed that collaboration on a Nordic level both creates networks (92%) and enhances existing ones (86%). Almost all respondents (96%) agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to continue the collaboration with their Nordic partners in the future, which is very telling about the functioning of collaboration within the projects.

Responses to the statements of the potential of Nordic research co-operation improving the chances of receiving research funding in the future – the so-called springboard idea – were mostly positive. The funding level on which Nordic research collaboration was seen as having the most positive effect was national, with 44% of the respondents strongly agreeing with the statement in contrast with European level (33%) and other international level (29%), which received more cautious support. However, there was also a high number of responses neither agreeing nor disagreeing with these statements, or alternatively not knowing or having no opinions about the improved opportunities of receiving further funding. This may be a reflection of limited experience of the long-term impact of Nordic research co-operation, as many respondents were participating in NordForsk-funded projects for the first time.

The statement of Nordic research funding being too small to make a substantial contribution divided opinions most strongly with 64% of the respondents disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement, and 20% agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement. In general, however, the respondents saw that Nordic-level research has the potential to make substantial contributions. There was no specific disciplinary pattern regarding which respondents tended to find Nordic research funding too small to make any substantial contribution, while respondents from the fields of the social sciences and the medical sciences were among the most frequent proponents of these statements.

The answers also show that participation in a NordForsk-funded project has distinctly supported both the professional and personal growth of the respondents. A total of 88% of the respondents observed professional growth and 71% personal growth. At the same time, however, 23% of the respondents were indifferent about the impact of Nordic research co-operation on their personal growth in particular.

The third group of statements focused on the value of Nordic research co-operation. The answers to these statements are summarised in Table 9.

The respondents largely felt that the Nordic countries face similar challenges, with 43% of the respondents agreeing and 34% strongly agreeing with the first statement. At the same time, they were also strongly of the opinion that shared Nordic experiences facilitate effective responses to a wide range of issues (94%). Furthermore, the survey respondents largely recognised that shared Nordic solutions benefit people in all the Nordic countries in contrast with, for example, benefitting people in only individual countries.

The respondents also agreed that the similar historical, cultural and social traditions in the Nordic region translate to effective research co-operation. Around four out of five respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that shared historical and cultural heritage (82%), similar social structures (84%) and similar working culture (82%) in the Nordic region result in effective and functioning research co-operation. In a similar vein, the majority of the respondents also either agreed (39%) or strongly agreed (52%) that shared Nordic values enhance trust-based co-operation, enhancing the view of Nordic co-operation as being built on common values.

Responses to the statement “Ability to understand other Nordic languages enhances trust-based co-operation” showed the most variation within this category. Although 49% of the respondents emphasised the continuing importance of shared linguistic heritage by agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement, a total of 12% of the respondents also contrasted this view by disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with the statement. At the same time, one-third of the respondents (33%) neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, highlighting ambiguities related to this question.

4.3 Characteristics of Nordic research co-operation

In addition to assessing specific values and impact, the respondents were asked to evaluate different attributes and the extent to which they apply to Nordic research co-operation based on their personal opinions and participation in a NordForsk-funded project. The respondents were asked to evaluate a list of attributes compiled from various research related material on a scale from 0 to 5 (1 = Does not apply at all, 2 = Does not apply, 3 = Applies to some extent, 4 = Applies partly, 5 = Applies to a great extent, 0 = Do not know/no opinion). The results are shown in Figure 1 from the highest average to the lowest.

The attributes presented in the list were compiled from available material and documents articulating research co-operation, such as NordForsk strategy papers in the period 2006 to 2022, in order to see how well they match with project participants’ views of Nordic research co-operation.

Overall, the average scores that the respondents gave show that several different attributes were seen as suitable for describing Nordic-level research co-operation. The fact that almost all attributes received scores ranging from “applying to some extent” to “applying greatly” also demonstrates a certain level of agreement among the respondents as to the many meanings that Nordic research co-operation may have.

The five attributes with the highest average score (over 4) were “attractive” (4.33), “inspiring” (4.27), “locally impactful” (4.16) “trustful” (4.10) and “open” (4.03). The two highest rated attributes “attractive” and “inspiring” can be seen as reflecting in particular the respondents’ personal attitudes towards collaborative research. The high ranking of the attribute “locally impactful” (4.16) also shows that the respondents regard the benefits of Nordic co-operation to primarily be at the local level rather than, for example, at the global level (3.37).

Only two attributes were evaluated with an average score falling within the category “does not apply”. These were “exclusive” (2.54) and “bureaucratic” (2.90), affirming the openness of Nordic research co-operation as well as implying that the respondents generally associate a lower level of administration with Nordic research co-operation.

4.4 Added value of Nordic research co-operation

In NordForsk’s calls for proposals, Nordic added value is one of the assessment criteria in the applications, with applicants asked to describe the Nordic added value that their research will produce and to define its importance. As discussed earlier in this report, NordForsk has devised its own definition of Nordic added value, which is used both in the assessment of grant applications as well as in the development of programmes and design of calls for proposals. These activities are divided into two main categories of Nordic added value, which are 1) the added value generated because the research collaboration is taking place in the Nordic region (category 1), and 2) the added value generated because the research can only be carried out in the Nordic region (category 2).

The survey respondents were asked to look at NordForsk’s definition of research activities that create Nordic added value and to select all the relevant research activities that they deemed to generate added value in their respective research projects. The respondents could select more than one option from both categories resulting in 462 answers. The distribution of the responses is presented in Figure 2.

A total of 64% of the selected activities belong to the first category of Nordic added value (“added value generated because the research collaboration is taking place in the Nordic region”) and 36% to the second category (“added value generated because the research can only be carried out in the Nordic region”). Included in the latter group, three respondents (0.6% of answers) did not identify any relevant research activity from the second category, while all the respondents could find options from the first category. Overall, research activities listed in the first category seemed to be more relevant or applicable to the respondents than the activities categorised under the second category.

NordForsk has gathered similar information on the Nordic added value that projects produce. The currently available data is extracted from the ResearchFish system as of June 2022 and is based on information provided about 107 NordForsk-funded projects. Compared with this data, the survey responses show similar results with the same four results topping both data sets, although in a slightly different order. For example, whereas the data on NordForsk’s website positions research activities that build on particular strengths of Nordic researchers at the top, the respondents participating in the survey placed research activities that build critical mass and/or expertise in the number-one position. In addition, in the data extracted from the research projects, regional mobility and networking ranked third and in the participant survey second.

The greatest difference between NordForsk’s data on the projects and the survey data collected for this report are views on the importance of research activities that produce Nordic added value through increased chances of success for Nordic researchers in EU research activities or other international research co-operation. While the data extracted from ResearchFish positions this as the fifth most frequently mentioned activity, the survey respondents placed it only second to last (6.3%). This difference can be explained by the differences between the overall aims of the projects as stated in research reporting and the experiences of individual participants. This highlights the relativity of defining Nordic added value. Furthermore, this result is also likely affected by the fact that not all survey participants have reporting responsibility towards NordForsk. As discussed earlier, the survey respondents also tend to emphasise the positive impact of Nordic-level research co-operation in chances of receiving national-level funding vis-à-vis European or other international funding.

4.5 Familiarity with Nordic added value

After reviewing the list of research activities, the survey participants were asked if they found the definition of “Nordic added value” to be clear. Contradicting with the alleged difficulties in addressing the concept, the vast majority of the respondents felt that the definition was clear by either agreeing (47%) or strongly agreeing (25%) with the statement. The share of respondents disagreeing with this statement was 6%, showing that most of the project participants find the concept clear, but not disclosing that it might still be unclear to some. Furthermore, almost one-fifth (19%) of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement, revealing certain ambiguities embedded in the question. Among those disagreeing with the statement and neither agreeing nor disagreeing it, no specific pattern could be detected in terms of the respondents’ roles in NordForsk-funded research projects.

The participants were further asked to clarify if it was easy for them to identify relevant research activities from the current list of activities generating Nordic added value. The majority of the respondents felt that identifying relevant research activities was easy by either agreeing (38%) or strongly agreeing (33%) with the statement, while only 5% of the respondents disagreed. Showing a similar trend as in the previously discussed statement, almost one-fifth of the respondents (18%) neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. An additional 6% of the respondents had no opinion about the statement.

Responses to the question as to whether the list of research activities was sufficient showed similar variation. Whereas 38% of the respondents agreed and 23% strongly agreed that the list was sufficient, one-third of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed (25%) or had no opinion (11%). Only 2.5% of the respondents disagreed with this statement. When asked to name research activities that the respondent felt that were missing from the list, only two clearly named research activities were given. However, both of these answers were research activities that could be categorised within the existing list of research activities that are seen as producing Nordic added value. This implies that what the listed research activities cover may not always be comprehensible enough.

4.6 Open-ended questions

Due to the key interest in how those involved in research projects understand and view the idea of Nordic added value, the respondents were further asked to describe what kind of added value they have gained professionally and personally from participating in Nordic research co-operation in an open-ended question. In addition, they were asked to describe the added value of doing research on a Nordic level vis-à-vis a national, European and/or an international level. These questions were a mandatory part of the survey, leading to a large number of answers with 73 participants (92%) giving an answer worth considering to the first question, and 71 participants (90%) to the second question. The answers to these questions are presented thematically in the following section with examples from the data.

Networks and mobility

The most frequently mentioned added value that had benefitted the participants professionally through their participation in Nordic research co-operation was networks and mobility. This emphasises the importance of Nordic research co-operation for individual participants above all as facilitating the creation and maintenance of networks.

Networks were understood as collaboration and contacts that take place at many different levels and between various actors. While individual respondents mentioned that they have co-operated with the same partners before, NordForsk-funded projects have generally facilitated the creation of new networks. Through the projects, new networks have been formed between different Nordic universities and institutions, as well as between universities and other sectors, such as the private sector. Some respondents said that Nordic co-operation had also facilitated the creation of networks across disciplinary boundaries. Other respondents, on the other hand, underlined the network-building capacity of the research projects more broadly as something facilitating the creation of new contacts both within and outside of the Nordic countries. This is summarised by one respondent who writes:

I have developed strong scientific and collaboration ties with researchers from Nordic universities. […] We have enabled substantial academic mobility and exchange within the Nordic region and neighbor [sic] areas such as the Baltic countries.

Within the academic context, some respondents emphasised the importance of having Nordic-level networks for early-stage researchers in particular, allowing the education and training of young scientists in specific fields, their integration into the research community and the supervision of PhD students by scholars from different countries.

Networks were also discussed from a more personal perspective by stressing how NordForsk-funded projects had been instrumental in creating networks between likeminded people. This had sometimes even led to the creation of friendships, blurring the line between professional and personal added value of networks, as is shown in the following example:

I’ve learned to know many new researchers, and some of them I could even call friends. It’s been very enjoable [sic] both professionally and personally.

In general, networks were described in the material as fruitful by having enabled knowledge-sharing and the exchange of ideas. Some respondents even described networks as the key factor behind generating more robust research results by bringing complementary expertise together, or even by reshaping research agendas, as the following example shows:

I have expanded considerably my collaboration network in the region, reshaping my agenda towards addressing relevant societal challenges in the Nordic context.

Overall, getting to know new people was also described as being simply fun and rewarding:

I have started to cooperate with new researchers, which I believe will lead to more and better research in the future. It’s fun and rewarding to get to know new people.

Although NordForsk-funded projects often include mobility, the importance of networks is emphasised in the material notably more than mobility. In addition, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related travel restrictions are interestingly not discussed almost at all, even though the pandemic coincided with the timeframe of the projects included in this survey.

Shared culture and way of working

When asked what the survey participants saw as the added value of doing research on a Nordic level vis-à-vis a national, European or other international level, the respondents placed most emphasis on the importance of cultural proximity in enabling a functioning and effective partnership. In a similar vein to the expert interviews, the responses cited the added value of having a common culture as influencing both practical implementation and the research itself, ranging from having a shared cultural and linguistic heritage to a similar working culture and living conditions across the Nordic region. For example, the respondents saw that a common culture often translated into having a shared understanding of various issues, as shown below:

It is a great advantage that we do not have to negotiate the practical meaning of the relevant values in great detail  --despite remaining cultural diffferences [sic], central patterns of social interactions are similar in the Nordic countries, i.e., the practical understanding of certain values is shared, which greatly eases collaboration. 

Furthermore, some respondents were of the opinion that having a common language or low language barriers facilitated communication with other Nordic colleagues. In general, the respondents described Nordic collaboration as easy, and the resulting bonds as closer and stronger.

Similar bureaucratic systems were also mentioned by some respondents as a specific benefit of doing research at a Nordic level. Similar systems were perceived to ease processes in general, leaving more time for research instead of spending time in “documenting research”, as one respondent summarised. The low level of bureaucracy related to the administration of the NordForsk-funded projects was also mentioned and compared in particular with EU-funded projects:

Less bureaucracy. Being honest, I could never join a [sic] EU funded project given the administrative work. This is killing each project and does not allow for innovative mind-sets.

Some respondents also discussed the cultural proximity and successful partnerships through the concept of trust. This is exemplified in the following:

Cooperation with Nordic research projects has been relatively easy because the trust is pretty much already there and that makes it so much easier to try out new things together, even when most partners do not know me personally from before. Such trust makes social cooperation easier, enhances confidence and helps with everything.

And:

There is a high level of trust due to similar cultural values between Nordic institutes.

Some critical counter-arguments to the view that shared culture creates better conditions for research in terms of content, implementation and impact can also be found in the data. For example, one respondent had an experience of a competitive situation that had arisen between national teams, leading to no fruitful results. The respondent cites that the success of a research project also depends on the type of teams that collaborate with each other. Some other respondents also cited that Nordic co-operation is just as important as any other international collaboration. Respondents coming from outside the Nordic countries in particular tended to point out that they do not conduct research solely on a Nordic level, making the evaluation of Nordic added value difficult.

Geographical proximity and sustainability

Geographical proximity between the Nordic countries was also valued by some respondents as a particular added value of doing research at a Nordic level. It was particularly emphasised for practical reasons. Travel between the Nordic countries was perceived as being relatively easy, while simultaneously being able to extend co-operation beyond national borders and thus increase the expertise available.

As a new type of added value or benefit of co-operating at a Nordic level, a couple of respondents also mentioned sustainability as a particular added value in reference to geographical proximity, as shorter distances result in fewer CO2 emissions and enable more sustainable travel.

New insights and perspectives

In addition to being regarded as a precondition for functioning partnerships and the practical implementation of the research projects, many respondents reported that both shared culture and uniquely Nordic phenomena had played an important role in providing them with new insights and perspectives, and even shaping research agendas. In the responses, these cover a range of issues such as similarly functioning societies, related legal and cultural frameworks, similar behavioural traits as well as common geographical and climatic conditions.

Having a similar or comparable research setting had allowed the respondents to identify shared interests and phenomena across the Nordic region. The respondents were also strongly of the opinion that specific regional problems and shared Nordic challenges require shared Nordic solutions.

More often, however, focusing on shared elements had led to the acknowledgement of differences across the Nordic region, which, in turn, had opened up novel comparative perspectives to understand various phenomena such as differences in societal structures. This is demonstrated in the following two quotes from the survey, which also reveal how the gaining of such insights may influence the whole field of research as well as the research agenda of an individual researcher:

We have been able to juxtapose similar phenomena in a critical way, which has given us tremendous insights about the multiplicity of the Nordic countries. We have established strong basis for Nordic scientific excellency in the field under investigation.

And:

My academic career was most conducted out of the Nordic context. Taking part in this project opened up several opportunities to improve my understanding of relevant societal challenges in the region, reshaping my research agenda.

The fact that a closer look at the shared Nordic elements makes it possible to identify differences was represented as being largely beneficial in the material. Differences were seen as facilitating the understanding of various phenomena in greater depth, especially at the national level, as the following responses show:

Nordic research broaden that understanding of slightly different solution in similar contexts. It helps to understand also the national level and validate the national research results. Nordic countries are fielding the development of services, so it is not easy to find similar context elsewhere.

And:

We learn so much from each other. We have very similar contexts which makes our results comparable, while at the same time different approaches on a national level which makes it very interesting to compare and learn from each other.

In addition from research, some respondents mention how collaboration at a Nordic level had also increased their understanding of different university and research practices:

I think it is valuable to see how research is conducted in other Nordic research institutes.

Resources

Respondents also felt that Nordic research co-operation was valuable in terms of resources. These resources can be divided into both material resources, such as data and infrastructure, and immaterial resources, such as competence.

The respondents discussed the material resources that Nordic research collaboration facilitates from various perspectives. First, access to data from multiple countries was considered valuable in itself. For example, the availability of homogenous data from different countries was seen as an added value of working at a Nordic level:

The added value is the use of similar data in nationwide studies where we can compare results between the individual countries and also provide more power and use up to date methods in research. For our research this collaboration has been extremely important and productive.

Second, the respondents valued material resources because of the critical mass that the incorporation of a large amount of data from different countries provided. Some respondents from the field of the medical sciences in particular cited critical mass as a key element in conducting high-quality research. Critical mass was valued for enabling different outcomes and hypotheses, as well as for supporting the reliability and validity of research results:

[U]se of several national cohorts of parients [sic] in similar diseased gives a high number of patiens [sic] when exploring different outcomes/hypotheses.

And:

Access to more data which increases statistical power in hypotheses testing.

Third, some respondents found the incorporation of data from different Nordic registers valuable because it makes Nordic research more competitive with larger countries, as the example below shows:

In my case we build on unique experiences and knowledge which are shared among colleagues from different Nordic countries (as well as Estonia). Sharing these experiences and cultivating them in a longer and larger project will definitely lead to results that are competitive.

For some, the pooling of resources had even translated into increasing funding options:

The cooperation has meant a larger population for the study, has increased the funding options - and increased our funding support from national Funds [sic]. 

The pooling and sharing of data and infrastructures are generally seen as helping to build the critical mass needed to produce particular results, but they can also be seen as enhancing cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness and access to research facilities were also mentioned in the material. Alongside this, however, material resources were also seen as having an important role in strengthening specific scientific disciplines across the Nordic region.

In addition to material resources, researchers also discussed immaterial resources. Immaterial resources refer to the added competence and expertise that the co-operation of scholars across the Nordic region had generated. In addition to producing a greater pool of relevant scholars, Nordic collaboration had also brought experts together across different disciplines:

Professionally: it would have been neigh impossible to conduct the research in question without the Nordic research cooperation because our research question required complementary competences distributed across the Nordic countries and required a unique resource almost only found in the Nordic countries. Additionally, our project is interdisciplinary, which has been very scientifically enriching and allows us to reach levels scientifically that would not have been possible without this project.

Some respondents even emphasised the role of immaterial resources as imperative for the realisation of research projects, as they had provided both individuals and research groups with valuable input on the studied phenomena, theory and methods. In a similar vein to material resources, immaterial resources were seen as improving the quality and validity of research when results could be compared across multiple countries or when scholars could share their knowledge and expertise with each other. In addition, the increased opportunities to receive feedback from colleagues was valued as important.

Research skills

The development of research skills was a particular added value that the respondents felt they had gained from their participation in NordForsk-funded projects. These responses were most strongly weighted towards professional added value. For example, some respondents mentioned how the projects had increased their expertise in their respective fields of research through new perspectives, such as cross-disciplinary perspectives. Others reported that they had also learnt new communication skills, project management skills and co-ordination skills, as the example below demonstrates:

Professionally I have gained the valuable experience of being part of the management team of a larger project as well as experience of coordinating the work of one participating partner.

Some respondents also felt that they had benefited from the projects on a personal level, for example through increased self-esteem and self-confidence.

Increased visibility and impact

Looking at the wider impact of the projects in more detail, the added value of research co-operation at a Nordic level also was also articulated in terms of research visibility and impact. For example, some respondents felt that funding from NordForsk had raised the profile of their research. Other respondents reported that the project had provided them with increased visibility throughout the Nordic region towards different stakeholders, such as scholars and policymakers. For example, one respondent stressed the importance of a shared culture, not only in terms of the relevance of studying certain phenomena, but also in terms of the most effective social impact that can be achieved through research:

While many of the social phenomena […] result from international developments, the Nordic countries often have a shared understanding of what sorts of reactions might be legally possible or morally admissible. Joint cultural frameworks thus make it relevant to study social phenomena on an Nordic level, and results may well include eg [sic] policy recommendations that would not work in, say, France or Germany, not to mention the U.S. or Asia. When you work with politically important society-changing questions, this is a very important point to consider.

Visibility and impact are not limited to the Nordic countries, with some respondents also highlighting the growing reputation of the research group outside the Nordic countries:

NordForsk funding has been critical factor of building my research group and its international reputation (also beyond the nordic [sic] countries)

The responses also mention how the projects have supported the publication activities of individual researchers by increasing the number of publications or enabling the writing of co-authored papers.

Future prospects

Responses to the open-ended questions on Nordic added value show that Nordic research co-operation continued to generate added value even after the completion of the projects. While some respondents felt that the mere participation in a NordForsk-funded project had had a positive impact on their professional reputation, others reported that it had also had a positive impact on future applications. As the most important success factor, the respondents identified networks, which had led to new collaborative projects and partnerships, as exemplified by one respondent:

Developed strong personal and professional relationships with fellow researchers in the Nordics. This has lead [sic] to me participating in proposals for national funding in other Scandinavian countries and continued collaboration

A couple of respondents similarly cited how participating in NordForsk-funded projects had both led to the initiation of further collaboration, as well as acted as a springboard, enabling the respondents to move to larger European-level infrastructures and networks, and even securing research funding at a European level.

4.7 Views on NordForsk

Lastly, questions about NordForsk as an organisation in terms of its familiarity, reputation and performance were included in the participant survey. The respondents were asked to evaluate four statements about NordForsk on a scale from 0 to 5 (0 = Do not know/no opinion, 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree). The distribution of the answers is compiled in Table 10.

The respondents viewed NordForsk’s performance to be positive across all statements. NordForsk is generally considered a well-known and reputable institution, although 18% of the respondents simultaneously neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement on reputation. In the open responses of the survey, one respondent specified that Nordic co-operation often seems to be undervalued, writing that “Nordic cooperation is an ‘easily hanging fruit’ which is undervalued.”

The majority of respondents had been satisfied with NordForsk. A total of 90% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement and none disagreed. This trend is also reflected in the background question, where the survey participants were also asked how likely it is that they will apply for NordForsk funding again in the future. The vast majority of the respondents answered this question positively, with 52% answering very likely and 28% quite likely, while 9% of respondents answered not so likely and 1% very unlikely. Ten percent of respondents were unsure whether they would reapply for NordForsk funding.

The participants also had the opportunity to leave open comments through the survey, most of which touched upon NordForsk’s performance. The majority of the open comments were positive and complimentary, highlighting the added value that NordForsk-funded projects had generated from both a research and a personal perspective. General support for the continuation and even strengthening of Nordic research co-operation was also present in the responses.

The open responses also included some proposals for the further development of Nordic research co-operation. A couple of respondents raised the need for more funding to increase the interest in and impact of research. In addition, a couple of other respondents highlighted the need to better integrate non-Nordic partners in projects, for example, by providing funding to non-Nordic researchers and institutions in order to involve key researchers in projects rather than having to subcontract them. This would allow relevant contributors to be a key part of the project team from the outset. Similarly, another respondent stressed the importance of enabling external research partners to be fully involved as partners, so that non-Nordic partners can be more closely involved in the project design and their research staff can also be paid. The respondent emphasised that only working with external parties at a secondary level with less to say and fewer resources may result in the reproduction of longstanding inequalities.

4.8 Summary

The analysis of the participant survey in this chapter has shown that researchers do not experience any major challenges in identifying the added value of conducting their research as a Nordic collaborative effort. The current definition of Nordic added value as devised by NordForsk was also deemed as sufficient and functioning. Nevertheless, the relative character of the concept of Nordic added value was apparent in the varying ways of emphasising the key rationale of collaborating at a Nordic level, from practical benefits to contributing to uniquely Nordic phenomena. A particular added value that was emphasised in the survey was that of networks. Like the experts, the researchers also regarded the similarity of Nordic societies as an important factor and strength that contributes to the efficiency of Nordic research co-operation, but also raised critical perspectives in respect of preconceived assumptions of the rationale of collaborating at the Nordic level and the importance of also acknowledging differences. The next chapter concludes the results of this report and suggests what implications these findings may have for the future use of Nordic added value as a guiding principle in Nordic research co-operation.