Part 2
The knowledge system

Introduction

To be able to follow up the objectives and priorities set out in this long-term plan, we need a well-functioning knowledge system. This means that academic communities at research and higher education institutions must be equipped to efficiently deliver high quality and sufficient capacity. The knowledge and skills developed in these academic communities must be relevant to the different sectors of society and meet the needs across Norway. This applies to both Norwegian and Sami research and education. The research and education institutions must also work well with the Research Council of Norway, the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (HK-dir), the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), Sikt – Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research, and other parts of the policy instrument system, as well as with the Ministry of Education and Research and the rest of the central government administration.

Several analyses conducted in recent years demonstrate that the Norwegian knowledge system has many strengths, but that improvements are also needed in a number of areas.1 This has been confirmed through the work on this long-term plan and the wealth of input the Ministry of Education and Research has received in that connection. The Government would therefore like to use Part II of this long-term plan to set out some of the most important challenges and signal measures where necessary.

Chapter 4 discusses the policy for higher education and skills, and reference is made to the ongoing work on two white papers in the field of education. Chapter 5 sets out the status and challenges in the research system, which the Government intends to follow up through, among other things, a dedicated white paper on the research system. Chapter 6 then sets out the missions, launched in this long-term plan as a new policy instrument in Norway, in greater detail. Chapter 7 discusses academic freedom and trust in research, which are basic preconditions for a well-functioning knowledge system. It provides an account of, among other things, the Government’s follow-up of the Kierulf Committee’s report on academic freedom of expression. Chapter 8 sets out the policy on open research and discusses the value of data, while Chapter 9 provides a brief account of the work on university and university college buildings.

4 Higher education and skills needs

4.1 Quality and capacity in higher education

High-quality higher education is a fundamental precondition for Norway’s further development as a democratic and sustainable knowledge society. The universities and university colleges play an essential role in society by educating highly skilled graduates who can fill important roles in society. Higher education also has a great bearing on individuals’ personal and career development.

Developing the capacity of higher education must accommodate the needs of society and the demand among applicants. Student demand is influenced by labour market prospects and is a good indicator, along with analyses of future skills needs, for developing the capacity of education programmes. The universities and university colleges have an independent responsibility to develop the capacity of their programmes in line with the skills needed in different areas of the labour market. Education institutions must also now, to a greater extent than before, gear their activities towards enabling people to update and supplement their skills. As set out in Report No 19 to the Storting (2020–2021) Styring av statlige universiteter og høyskoler (‘Governance of state universities and university colleges’ – in Norwegian only), the actors involved in developing the capacity of higher education – the institutions, applicants and the authorities – need better access to updated information and good analyses of the regional and national skills needs in the different areas of education. It is on this background that responsibility for analysis and information work concerning skills needs has been assigned to the Directorate for Higher Education and Skills.

More than 100,000 people apply for higher education every year, and there is reason to believe that this number will increase going forward. Choosing an education is one of the most important decisions we make in life. In 2021, the Ministry of Education and Research appointed a committee, chaired by Marianne Aasen, to review and assess the regulations relating to admission to higher education. The Committee will submit its report (Official Norwegian Report) on 1 December 2022. Norwegian students make up one of the oldest student populations in the world, and it is important that the system does not hinder young people from starting an education. The Government will therefore consider changing the rules on admission to higher education.

The Ministry of Education and Research wishes to improve its cooperation with other ministries with respect to the skills needs in different sectors. The Ministry also wishes to raise awareness in other sectors of how it works on developing policy on skills and higher education. The Ministry is therefore preparing a guide for ministries’ work on skills needs, and plans to hold meetings with the other ministries on this topic every six months.

Education policy is important for enhancing innovation and development in all sectors. Research-based education is an important cornerstone, both for ensuring positions in the public and private sector are filled with people who possess the right qualifications, and for enhancing research and innovation and thus ensuring that the knowledge is used. Doctoral degree programmes are an important link between the world of education and the world of research, which help to meet research communities’ and the labour market’s needs for qualified researcher personnel. If more researchers can find positions outside academia after they graduate, this may lead Norwegian companies and public enterprises to apply research to a greater extent.

Society is currently undergoing a rapid digital transition, which has consequences for higher education policy. We will all need ICT and technology skills to a greater or lesser extent. The digital transition is far from over – rather it appears to be gathering speed. The large majority of employees will therefore need a certain level of digital skills to keep up in future. There is a lack of highly-skilled ICT personnel in Norway, as well as in the rest of the world. This trend means that highly-skilled and specialised ICT personnel are in demand, and that people in general need å higher level of ICT skills to be able to participate in the labour market. The Government expects the education institutions to continue addressing the consequences of the digital transition, so that they can meet society’s need for knowledge and skills. The education institutions must adapt the skills they impart to candidates as well as how they provide and implement education programmes.

HK-dir has established a national competition arena for education quality to stimulate knowledge, skills and innovative work on education. Norwegian participation in Erasmus+ also enables Norwegian universities and university colleges to participate in international collaboration projects that aim to develop the field of education. The Government expects the universities and university colleges to use the different schemes available to them in their quality development work, and also expects the institutions – irrespective of external funding – to work systematically to develop student-active teaching and assessment methods that promote learning.

4.2 Flexible and accessible education

Norwegian and Sami higher education should also be accessible off campus, close to where people live. It should be possible for people in all stages of life to take higher education and top up their knowledge and skills by taking courses and further and continuing education. More should therefore be done to facilitate high-quality decentralised and online education. Establishing new education institutions or more campuses are not necessarily the answer to bringing education closer to the people. The universities and university colleges can use technology and digital aids and collaborate with local communities and employers. Experience gained during e.g. the coronavirus pandemic can form a basis for developing better solutions whereby digital tools can be used in a well thought-out educational manner. This will provide a good point of departure for accessible courses and programmes that are adapted to local and regional labour needs and learning needs.

The campus structure we have in Norway makes up the core of the provision of decentralised education. The study centre model is suited to providing education and mobilising skills development in more locations off campus, and it serves as a good supplement to the campus structure. The study centre model is based on education institutions collaborating with local authorities and social actors to organise session-based courses and programmes with digital teaching and supervision. This method of teaching allows higher education to be more easily and flexibly combined with work and other commitments. Online education and hybrid solutions thus lower the threshold for taking courses and education.

However, accessible higher education is not just about session-based or online programmes. It is important that education institutions offer first-degree programmes all over Norway to ensure that people who want to study full-time do not have too far to travel.

In spring 2023, the Government will present a white paper to the Storting on the labour market’s skills needs in the short and long term. The paper’s overall objective is to cover the most important skills needs in the labour market and society going forward, and ensure that people across Norway have access to education. A shortage of labour and an aging population make it even more important to prioritise education that is in demand among students and as well as in the labour market, and that provide the skills Norwegian society needs going forward.

The Government has also announced that it will present a white paper to the Storting on programmes of professional study. The emphasis in this paper will be on teacher training programmes, engineering programmes and health and social care programmes. The professional disciplines are very important for the welfare state. High-quality programmes of professional study provide skills that will secure good public services for people all over Norway. The programmes of professional study also contribute to professional innovation and development in schools, health and care institutions and other organisations. The white paper on programmes of professional study will address perspectives such as quality and capacity.

4.3 Tertiary vocational education

Society’s skills needs are not met by universities and university colleges alone, and the skills policy must therefore look at the education system as a whole. Tertiary vocational education will be important in the years to come. The three biggest fields here are technical subjects, health and welfare, and economics and business administration. Some vocational colleges collaborate with Norwegian university colleges and universities to enable students to use their tertiary vocational education as the basis for a bachelor’s or, if relevant, master’s degree.

Tertiary vocational education is a sector in growth. A total of 10,897 students graduated from 61 vocational colleges in 2021. This is an increase of about 31 per cent compared with 2020 and 62 per cent compared with 2019.2 In its input to the long-term plan, HK-dir estimated that the labour market’s need for vocational college graduates was large and growing. Tertiary vocational education is the most important bottleneck in a number of industries and regions. The vocational colleges have good local support and offer more flexible programmes that can be taken in combination with other commitments. The Government would therefore like to emphasise the important role vocational colleges play in the knowledge system, not least as suppliers of sorely needed vocational qualifications in the labour market in the years to come.

4.4 Measures

The Government will:

• present a white paper to the Storting on the labour market’s skills needs in the short and long term

• present a white paper to the Storting on programmes of professional study

• develop an analysis and information system on national and regional skills needs in HK-dir

• consider making changes to the admission system to higher education

• systemise the ministries’ work on skills needs by means of a guide and hold regular meetings with the ministries every six months

5 A well balanced research system

To what extent the Norwegian research system is well balanced is the subject of constant debate. There are a lot of different views on what ‘well balanced’ means and whether the system is now in a state of ‘imbalance’, and there are as many views on what areas should be better balanced than they are today. The debated issues include the ratio between basic and applied research, between the amount of research carried out in the different sectors, between international and national research funding, between basic allocations and competition-based funding, and between investments in research and tools for research such as infrastructure. There are thus many answers to what constitutes ‘well balanced’ in these matters, and the answers will vary depending on one’s point of view. The Government believes that it is time to review the research system to assess whether changes are needed that can make an optimal contribution to achieving research policy objectives.

There are also a number of individual topics that are ripe for action already before the broad review of the research system. This applies to international collaboration, Norwegian academic language, research and development in business and industry, coordination of research policy and the universities’ and university colleges’ career policies.

5.1 Background

Around 90,000 people work in research and development in Norway, broken down into three research-performing sectors: the universities and university colleges, the institute sector and business and industry.3 These sectors have emerged and developed over a long period of time in mutual exchange with each other, with political authorities and with the needs of society. The university and university college sector has traditionally emphasised basic research and research linked to their areas of education. The institute sector, which is the smallest of the three sectors, has largely focused on applied research. Business and industry, which is the biggest R&D sector measured in terms of investment, has largely engaged in development work and invested less in research compared with many other countries.

R&D allocations have increased more and more regularly than in most comparable countries over the past 20 years. The internationalisation that was wanted and planned has taken place. Overall, research quality is good. Norway is ranked number 10 in the world’s 43 top nations measured in publication volume. Norway’s researchers do very well in the EU. The Research Council’s added value is well documented by systematic surveys in a range of areas, for example surveys showing the added value generated by the funding the Research Council allocates to business and industry.

In other words, the growth and the focus of the R&D allocations have served us well in many respects. Nevertheless, it is now time to devote special attention to the research system because of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 10–15 years.

5.2 Changes in the research system

Significant changes have taken place in the research system, both within and between the three research-performing sectors, and the breakdown of R&D activities has also changed between them. A number of universities and university colleges have merged, and more institutions have been awarded university status. The university and university college sector has also grown considerably. From 2015 to 2019, the sector’s R&D expenses increased by 27 per cent, while R&D staff increased by 17 per cent.4 Student numbers increased by 9 per cent during the same period.5 The changes have led some of the universities and university colleges to focus more on applied research and innovation, and the biggest institutions in particular obtain more external funding than previously. The proportion of basic research at universities and university colleges has dropped from 48 to 38 per cent in the past 20 years, and applied research now accounts for almost half of the activity in this sector. In absolute figures, basic research has also grown considerably during the period.

Changes have also taken place in the institute sector. Changes in the university and university college sector, among other things, have reduced the institute sector’s access to funding from the Research Council. Several institutes have also merged with other institutes or been amalgamated into universities or university colleges. The first Norwegian institute policy strategy was presented in 2020.6 The strategy has resulted in a joint Research Council follow-up regime for the public administrative institutes, together with the institutes that receive basic funding and SIMULA. The Government also revised the guidelines for state basic allocations to the institutes in 2021.

Research publication has increased in both the university and university college sector and in the institute sector, and an ever growing proportion of this publication takes place in open channels.

There has been a positive development in business and industry’s share of national R&D over the past 10 years, and it now makes up around 47.5 per cent of Norway’s total R&D expenditure. Extraordinarily large public grants in 2020 due to the pandemic contributed to the increase that year. R&D in business and industry nevertheless saw a real growth of almost 50 per cent during the period 2010 to 2020. This growth coincides with the growth in public grants to research, development and innovation in business and industry. This funding doubled during the period 2012–2017.7 The grants were reduced in 2018 and 2019, and accounted in 2019 for around 30 per cent of the R&D expenses of business and industry.

Compared with many other countries, R&D activity in Norwegian business and industry is still low. This is due, among other things, to the fact that the structure of Norwegian business and industry has a high level of specialisation in industries with relatively low R&D intensity and a large proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises. Most of the R&D work that is carried out in business and industry takes place in the service industries, which is also where the highest growth is seen. The Government has expressed its ambition for R&D in business and industry to equal 2 per cent of GDP.

One of the most noticeable changes over the past 10–15 years is the marked internationalisation of research and the Norwegian research system. The proportion of researchers with a foreign background at Norwegian universities, university colleges, hospital trusts, regional health authorities and research institutes has risen from 18 per cent in 2007 to 29 per cent in 2018. Around 80 per cent of researchers with a foreign background are internationally mobile researchers. In 2018, almost half of the employees in temporary positions at universities and university colleges had foreign backgrounds, compared to around 20 per cent of the permanent staff.8 The proportion of foreign doctoral students was 44 per cent in 2021, and around 60 per cent in mathematics, science and technology.9 The proportion of foreign applicants to research fellowships and postdoctoral researcher positions was around 80 per cent.10

The EU’s research policy and policy instruments have become increasingly important at the national level. Participation in Horizon 2020 was successful, with a strong increase in the number of applications granted over the programme period. The Government has even higher ambitions for participation in Horizon Europe, including the new missions, for the period 2021–2027.

Norway now also participates actively in the European Research Area (ERA) – an internal market for research, innovation and technology. Participation provides access to new knowledge, important networks and impulses for policy development in, among other areas, green and digital transition, researcher careers, academic freedom, data infrastructure and open knowledge sharing. The collaboration is based on a set of common values and principles for research and innovation adopted in the EU.

Fewer structural changes have taken place at the strategic and political level in Norway, but changes have nevertheless taken place within a stable external framework. The main structure based on one research council has remained largely unchanged. The Research Council is the funding channel and quality assurance mechanism for research projects, and has an important strategic role in addressing national priorities, contributing to the development of strong research communities and cultivating talented young researchers. The Research Council also serves as a research policy adviser for the authorities. Application processing was reorganised under portfolio management in 2019, and the Council’s use of programme boards was changed accordingly. The Research Council was last evaluated in 2012.11 Two area reviews have been conducted more recently that have included the Research Council, without major changes being made to the Research Council’s areas of responsibility or roles.12 Changes in the research-performing sectors impact the Research Council and its interaction with the sectors, which can cause certain challenges as described below. The Research Council’s difficult economic situation, which came to light in spring 2022, comes in addition to this, cf. mention in Proposition No 1 to the Storting (Resolution) (2022–2023) for the Ministry of Education and Research. The situation shows the important role the Research Council plays in the research system and the importance of the research funding awarded via the competition arenas for Norwegian research communities.

At the political level, the sector principle and the Ministry’s responsibility for coordinating research policy remain constants. This principle, which means that all the ministries are responsible for research in their sector, has advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it ensures the entire government system has an awareness and knowledge of the significance of research. On the other hand, this division of labour demands a clear understanding of responsibility and effective coordination. The Ministry of Education and Research prepared a Veileder for sektoransvaret for forskning (‘Guide for sector responsibility for research’ – in Norwegian only) in 2017, in cooperation with the other ministries.13 Although this guide clarifies what sector responsibility entails, to what extent coordination is effective enough can be questioned, given the ever growing need for cross-sector cooperation.

5.3 Challenges and issues

Many of the changes discussed above have brought about improvements, both in terms of quality and capacity, and they are based on major restructuring efforts in many organisations. There are nevertheless numerous challenges in the research system. Researchers, research institutions and various special interest organisations highlight difficulties and pending issues that also seem to be inter-related to a certain extent.

Several key actors feel that the division of roles and responsibilities between the three research-performing sectors has become too unclear. Now that universities and university colleges are developing differentiated academic profiles, sometimes through development agreements with the Ministry of Education and Research, a tricky balance must be struck in several areas. Determining what priority should be given to basic research in relation to other areas, such as innovation and developing professional disciplines, must be carefully considered in and across institutions. The institutions have a strategic responsibility for their own priorities and should be allowed to develop based on their strengths. At the same time, the university and university college sector as a whole must safeguard national and regional societal needs, participate in international collaboration and succeed in the international competition for research funding.

The institute sector, on its part, finds that the research landscape has changed in a way that makes it difficult for many institutes to secure adequate project funding, largely due to increased competition from universities and university colleges.

Business and industry may find it difficult to reach the Government target of R&D investments in the sector accounting for 2 per cent of GDP by 2030. Public R&D funding aims to encourage business and industry to invest more in this area than it otherwise would have done.

SkatteFUNN is a tax break scheme that aims to support research and development in business and industry. Several analyses have found that the SkatteFUNN scheme addresses several objectives, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, but that the majority of tax breaks under this scheme go to development projects rather than research. Efforts are needed to find out how the authorities can best go about increasing research and development in business and industry.

Some of the challenges described above are linked to the Research Council’s roles and instruments. For example, it appears that university and university college researchers’ increased dependence on funding from external sources such as the Research Council is linked to the increase in the number of academic staff. If correct, this may indicate that the institutions do not have a strong enough culture or capacity to distribute resources in a manner that safeguards prioritised research tasks. The causal connections here are complicated, however, and these questions should therefore be studied in more detail.

Competition-based schemes managed by the Research Council are important for ensuring high quality and for gearing research towards the knowledge needs in different sectors of society. This applies to all three research-performing sectors. The very low percentage of successful applications seen in some calls for proposals in recent years, and maybe especially under the open competition arena Ground-breaking research, have led some to question whether the transaction costs linked to preparing an application and administration are proportionate to the benefits. The increasing number of rejections is challenging trust in the system and leading to debate on time expenditure, assessment criteria, application processing and the Research Council’s feedback to applicants.

Another challenge is that a great deal of the project funding the universities and university colleges receive from the Research Council go to research fellow, postdoctoral and other research positions on temporary contracts, which will require strong and continuous growth in the permanent research staff if it is not to exacerbate the problem of temporary positions. Given the limited financial scope of action referred to in Chapter 1, further growth in allocations to fund more academic staff members cannot be expected.

There is also good reason to look at the effects of the sector principle in Norwegian research. The OECD has highlighted the danger of silo thinking and fragmented backing for policy development in the area of research and innovation in several reports. This is becoming ever more pressing given the urgent need to solve the challenges facing society, for example in the areas of climate change and health. In its input to the work on the long-term plan, the OECD suggests establishing stronger coordination mechanisms at a high level.

One topic that has long been discussed is the unintended and undesired consequences of the indicators that have been used since 2003 in the performance-based funding of research at state universities and university colleges, in large parts of the institute sector and hospitals.14 There is much to indicate that the incentive effect of these indicators has contributed to the significant growth in the volume of publication. The use of these indicators has also had unfortunate consequences, such as an exaggerated focus on quantity rather than quality in research, and detrimental pressure to publish, particularly among young researchers, which may have taken precedence over other important tasks.

The high proportion of academic staff in temporary positions in the university and university college sector has also been a problem over time. This is unfortunate, particularly for young researchers, who do not get the job security they need, but also for the research system, which is marked by short-term perspectives and ad hoc solutions rather than holistic strategies where recruitment, career paths and academic profiles are developed together. Despite prolonged discussions and a number of political initiatives, there has only been a small decrease in the proportion of employees in temporary positions, from 16.7 per cent in 2016 to 12.7 per cent in 2021, while the corresponding figure for the labour market in general is 8 per cent and under 1 per cent for the institute sector.15

The internationalisation of the Norwegian research system described above has, among other things, helped to improve the quality of Norwegian research, and there is reason to believe that the strong growth in the proportion of foreign researchers has also made a positive contribution here. Several debates in recent years have also shown that the rapid changes have created challenges, linked for example to protecting Norwegian academic language and Norwegian topics and research perspectives. Strong growth in the proportion of foreign researchers is also linked to the issue of temporary positions, since a high proportion of them are employed on temporary contracts. Abundant access to foreign labour may also mask other underlying challenges, including poor recruitment of Norwegian students to natural sciences and mathematics.

5.4 The Government’s policy

The Government believes that ensuring that Norway has a well-functioning research system is a political responsibility, where the roles of different actors are clarified in relation to each other and balanced to enable them, as a whole, to achieve the overriding objectives of research policy. A system that has such complicated tasks and involves so many people will inevitably encounter challenges, and many of the challenges must be addressed by the research-performing institutions and policy agencies in their ongoing strategic restructuring. However, the overall challenges outlined above indicate that political action is also needed in the time ahead. In certain areas, the knowledge base is sufficient to allow relatively quick action, while a more long-term approach is needed in other areas.

A thorough assessment of the optimal relationship between the three research-performing sectors, including in light of the challenges described above, is a matter that requires more long-term study. The Government has previously established a principle whereby policy development for one of the research-performing sectors must be seen in conjunction with the policies for the other research-performing sectors.16 The preliminary assessment of the current situation with respect to responsibilities, roles and tasks is that it is too unclear and under too much pressure, and that this complicates the development of the sectors and of the research system as a whole. A further complication is that there is considerable variation within the three sectors. Returning to a ‘traditional division of labour’, which some people have advocated, is thus not desirable. The OECD stated in its input to the long-term plan that this division of labour ‘has become largely obsolete in many areas due to the natural evolution of the missions of these institutions and to the complexity of the scientific, technological, and societal challenges with which they contend’.17 The Government shares the OECD’s assessment on this point, and therefore does not consider it an option to, for example, limit the universities’ activities to basic research.

We need a better basis for analysis to be able to clarify what constitutes expedient roles, responsibilities and tasks for different categories of actors going forward. The Government has therefore decided to initiate work on a dedicate white paper on the research system, which will look at these issues, among others, in more detail.

A closely related topic that must also be considered in this work is the Research Council’s roles and functions in the Norwegian research system. The Council is a key actor with powerful instruments at its disposal and a comprehensive system for quality assuring and awarding funding to research projects. However, its central role also entails a risk of, for example, universities basing their activities on the Research Council and not developing sufficient strategic capacity of their own at the different levels of the organisation to secure good, clear research profiles, including comprehensive recruitment and career plans and continuous assessment of the quality of project ideas.18 The vulnerability this entails was made evident when the Research Council’s financial problems in spring 2022 generated a great deal of unease in research communities and a fear that it would be virtually impossible to carry out important research projects and recruit new researchers as desired. The Government believes that the Research Council’s roles and functions need to be assessed to ensure that it generates added value for Norwegian and Sami research without infringing on the research-performing institutions’ strategic responsibility. In that connection, more consideration needs to be given to what constitutes an expedient breakdown between the big funding channels for Norwegian research, such as the relationship between basic allocations and competition-based funding and the relationship between international funding – from the EU in particular – and national funding.

In addition to the roles and functions of the Research Council vis-à-vis the research-performing institutions, closer consideration must also be given to its relationship to the government administration and its role as research policy adviser, and, in particular, its relationship to the Ministry of Education and Research, which is responsible for coordinating research policy.

The Government has announced that it will consider changing the Research Council’s budget, including a review of the chapters and items in the parts of the national budget that concern the Research Council. The Council currently operates with a complicated budget model, with funding being allocated over many items in the national budget and with the opportunity to transfer unused allocations to the following year’s budget. The Government wishes to look at alternatives that can contribute to more expedient funding of Norwegian research and innovation through the Research Council and to better financial management. The current financial situation makes this issue more relevant than ever. The Government will return to this topic later in connection with the 2024 national budget. A review is also needed of the Research Council’s advisory function in its ordinary day-to-day work, in challenging situations such as the current financial situation, and in relation to large-scale processes such as work on this long-term plan.

The year 2023 marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Research Council, and ten years since it last underwent an evaluation. In light of the discussion above, the Government believes that the time is ripe for a review of the Research Council and its functions in the Norwegian research system. This review will be an important element in the knowledge base for the white paper the Government plans to present towards the end of the current parliamentary term. It will also provide a comprehensive assessment of the measures necessary to secure a well-functioning and forward-looking research system in Norway and increase the added value created by the Research Council.

The advantages and disadvantages of the sector principle receive a great deal of attention. In any case, the coordination of research policy must be improved and consolidated. It is therefore necessary to look at the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and how it can be improved overall.

One of the Government’s objectives is for the business and industry sector to carry out more research than it does today, and the aspects of the current research system that promote such a development and those that do not should therefore be assessed. The majority of research and innovation in business and industry is carried out without public funding. This suggests that the business sector considers it profitable to invest in new knowledge. The institute sector, including the public administrative institutes possess essential expertise that can help to resolve the challenges facing society. We need the institutes to use their strengths, including as ‘research departments’ for small and medium-sized enterprises. At the same time, preliminary figures indicate that business and industry is now procuring less R&D services. This must be investigated further. Although one of four enterprises report R&D activities, around only 5 per cent of them take advantage of the total policy instrument system for research, development and innovation. We need more knowledge about how the authorities can help to strengthen business and industry’s own research and research-driven innovation efforts.

International collaboration is a precondition for achieving national research and higher education objectives. The Government will continue to help Norwegian actors to make good use of the opportunities in the European research and innovation collaboration. This requires a good national support system that mobilises and supports participation in Horizon Europe and national competition arenas that are geared towards working well with the European arenas and mobilising participation in the framework programme. Norway will also help to develop European policy with a view to ensuring a well-functioning European research area that also benefits Norwegian researchers and knowledge actors.

With respect to Norwegian academic language, the Government has made it clear that the responsibility set out in Section 1-7 of the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges on maintaining and further developing Norwegian academic languages must be followed up in practice. Norwegian has lost ground to English (what is known as domain loss) in both research and higher education, a development the Government views with concern. The situation is particularly challenging for Nynorsk, the lesser used of the two official forms of written Norwegian, but Bokmål is also under considerable pressure. The rapid decline in the use of Norwegian as a language of instruction in recent years is a particular concern, a development that is linked to a shortage of Norwegian teaching aids in many subjects. The Government believes this development must be reversed, and that it must be done in time. The Government will therefore continue to fund Norwegian language scientific journals and development of textbooks in Norwegian, especially Nynorsk, and Sami, which suffer the most serious shortage of textbooks. Without a good Norwegian academic language, higher education graduates will struggle to communicate in an academic language with Norwegian society and the labour market. This will be detrimental to dissemination during a period when it should be being strengthened, as the Kierulf Committee recently advocated, cf. Chapter 7. Research and researcher training will also be negatively impacted over time by inadequate Norwegian academic language, particularly in subjects where knowledge is irrevocably linked to its linguistic presentation. Awareness of the value of protecting and developing a first language as an academic language is increasing around the world.

In the allocation letters for 2022, the Government asks the institutions to fulfil their responsibility for Norwegian academic language, by, among other things, providing langue tuition to employees who need it and continuing to work on Norwegian academic terminology in both forms of written Norwegian. The University of Bergen is doing important work with respect to academic terminology through Termportalen, a freely available Norwegian terminology resource that covers a range of academic subjects. The Government expects the institutions and academic communities to contribute to developing Termportalen and similar initiatives so that we will continue to be able to do academic work in Norwegian. The Ministry of Education and Research will follow developments in this areas and assess the need for more drastic measures if the situation does not improve soon.

The funding system in the university and university college sector has recently been reviewed. An expert group (‘the Hatlen Committee’) presented a comprehensive review of the funding system in March 2022 in which it proposed, among other things, simplifying the funding system considerably by reducing the number of indicators from eight to two.19 The Government will present a more detailed assessment of the Hatlen Committee’s proposals on the development of the funding system for state universities and university colleges at a later date. See Proposition No 1 to the Storting (Resolution) (2022–2023) for the Ministry of Education and Research for more details.

The Government will work to promote a diverse university and university college sector where clearer profiles and division of labour between the institutions will contribute to high quality and accessibility in research and higher education. Development agreements were introduced as a policy instrument to address differentiation in governance and to enable the institutions to carry out their mission and meet national, regional and local needs. The agreements were entered into in groups during the period 2016–2018, and will be in force until the end of 2022. Report No 19 to the Storting (2020–2021) Styring av statlige universiteter og høyskoler (‘Governance of state universities and university colleges’ – in Norwegian only) concluded that the development agreements will be given a more central role in the governance of the sector. New development agreements will apply for the period 2023–2026.

The development agreements will be based on the sector objectives. In spring 2022, the Ministry of Education and Research stipulated three new overriding sector objectives for universities and university colleges applicable from 2023:

• high quality in education and research

• sustainable societal development, welfare and innovation.

• good access to education, research and skills across Norway

These objectives have been specifically formulated for the universities and university colleges, with the distinctive features of the sector in mind, but correspond well with the overriding objectives of this long-term plan, which applies to all Norwegian research and higher education. Participation in international education and research collaboration is a precondition for the universities and university colleges achieving these objectives.

The institutions shall have freedom to develop their own profiles. However, the Ministry of Education and Research has the overriding responsibility to ensure that society’s needs are met through good resource utilisation. The development agreements shall play a part in following up strategically important areas in order to achieve the sector objectives and follow up the objectives and priorities set out in the long-term plan, based on the distinctive nature of the institutions and each institution’s profile. The development agreements are part of the Government’s trust reform, cf. box 3.14. The Ministry of Education and Research is in a dialogue-based process with the institutions regarding new agreements in 2022.

Much of the discussion on diversity in Norwegian higher education has been about university colleges’ possibility to become universities through an accreditation process. The Government has appointed an expert group to assess the quality and accreditation requirements for universities. The expert group’s proposals will make up part of the decision-making basis when the Government considers these issues in connection with the proposition on a new act relating to universities and university colleges in 2023.

With respect to the university and university college sector, the Government has also expressed the clear objective of reducing the proportion of temporary positions to bring it in line with the rest of the labour market. The Government will propose amendments to the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges in its follow-up of this objective to rein in the possibilities for temporary appointments. However, more holistic and long-term efforts are also needed in this area in extension of, among other things, the Ministry’s Strategi for forskerrekruttering og karriereutvikling (‘Strategy for researcher recruitment and career development’ – in Norwegian only) and the work in progress on new regulations relating to appointments.20 This work should be seen in light of the fact that assessment systems for researchers and research are changing, both in Norway and abroad, among other things to change the quality culture by shifting the exaggerated focus on publication figures, cf. Chapter 7.

5.5 Measures

The Government will:

• present a white paper on the research system during the current parliamentary period based on, among other things, a review of the Research Council. The paper will look at the research-performing sectors in context with each other and with the Research Council’s functions.

• perform a review of the Research Council and its roles and functions in the Norwegian research system

• strengthen the knowledge base and coordination mechanisms for research policy

• ensure good Norwegian follow-up of the increased focus on a European Research Area and consider drawing up a national roadmap for Norwegian follow-up of relevant ERA measures

• follow up the universities’ and university colleges’ work on strengthening the position of Norwegian academic language and assess the need for further measures if the situation does not improve

• present a strategy that aims for research and development in business and industry to correspond to 2 per cent of GDP by 2030

• present a more detailed assessment of the Hatlen Committee’s proposals on the development of the funding system for state universities and university colleges at a later date

• follow up the work on recruitment and career to facilitate a comprehensive career policy at the universities and university colleges, including efforts to reduce the proportion of temporary positions by means of a new act relating to universities and university colleges and the management dialogue with the sector

6 Missions

The Government wishes to contribute to research-based knowledge being used to solve the concrete problems that are the challenges of our age. Both basic research and applied research are important preconditions in that connection. However, traditional research policy instruments alone do not provide enough direction or momentum to enable us to actually solve the problems in time. Large amounts of knowledge are published in articles and reports, but the way from publication to concrete application is sometimes too long and too much is left up to chance. This situation forms the backdrop to the Government introducing missions as a new instrument in Norwegian research and innovation policy in the present long-term plan.21 The first missions will be on sustainable feed and inclusion of more children and young people in education, employment and society. See the more detailed discussion of these missions in Chapter 3, under the thematic priorities climate, the environment and energy and trust and community. Norway is also an active participant in the EU missions through Horizon Europe.

6.1 What are missions?

Missions are ground-breaking initiatives where the goal is to find solutions to defined technological and/or societal problems by a set deadline. A mission may be initiated when the challenge is known, but the solution is not. This work method provides an opportunity to involve enterprises, public service providers and regulatory authorities etc. in collaboration with researchers.22 Its intention is for knowledgeable people from different sectors to coordinate their efforts to succeed. The missions shall also use the knowledge already out there, and the results shall actually be implemented in society.

International developments over the past few years, in the EU in particular, have shown that missions are a promising research and innovation policy tool. However, the idea behind missions is by no means new. It has existed in various forms since the end of World War II, but has been revived, among other things, through the European Commission’s work on Horizon Europe. Other countries, including the UK and the Netherlands, have also established strategies for such missions.23 The OECD has been another important driver in the development of mission methods.24

To mobilise sufficient efforts from those involved, the goal of a mission must be defined in such a way that it is possible to determine whether it has been achieved by the set deadline. The goal of the mission will thus be a quantitative measure or a clearly defined qualitative goal. Defined sub-goals can serve to indicate whether the results of the different measures and projects are pointing in the right direction.

The large challenges facing society that the missions are intended to address, rarely have simple solutions. The missions the Government is now set to launch cut across several policy areas and require policy agencies to follow them up. The missions thus have clear political support, and broad participation by relevant actors will be encouraged.

Missions are divided into two broad types: accelerators and transformers. The object of pure accelerator missions is to increase the tempo of developments within a given, delimited area. Transformer missions are more complex and entail extensive social changes and amendments to regulations, legislation and policy.

These two broad types are not mutually exclusive. We can envisage major transformer missions that involve a range of accelerator missions, but also smaller transformer missions with clear goals in certain underlying areas. To what extent the missions are research-driven can vary, but research-based knowledge will generally play an important role.

6.2 EU Missions

The European Commission has launched five missions in its framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon Europe. Four of the five EU Missions ‘Restore our Ocean and Waters’, ‘Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities’, ‘Adaption to Climate Change’ and ‘A soil Deal for Europe’ are linked to the EU’s political ambition to achieve a green transition, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. The fifth Mission, ‘Cancer’ is linked to the EU’s cancer plan. Norway’s participation in the EU missions has the political support of the Government.25 The European Commission also places great emphasis on the EU missions being implemented at the national, regional and local levels.

The ministries have a clear role to play in following up the EU missions because cross-cutting coordination is sorely needed, as there are close links between our national and international agendas, and because the ministries shall help to develop regulatory frameworks that support the goals. National initiatives and activities will also be linked to activities at the EU level. Closely involving the ministries will help to ensure more efficient mobilisation, coordination and implementation of Norwegian participation and national policy. The Research Council and Innovation Norway are also responsible, at the overriding level, for coordinating and mobilising Norwegian participation in line with their role as the national support system for Horizon Europe.

6.3 Missions in Norway

Although missions have not been an integral part of overriding Norwegian research and innovation policy to date, the policy agencies apply an approach with many similarities to missions in certain areas to accelerate technology development, for example in PILOT-E and CLIMIT. The OECD and NIFU point out that these challenge-driven programmes are a great point of departure for realising accelerator missions where maturing and commercialising technology are important factors.26

The missions that are being launched in the present long-term plan are based on areas that the Government gives high priority to, and where research-based knowledge and skills are a prerequisite for achieving the concrete goal. Emphasis is also placed on ensuring that the other conditions required are in place. One important premise is that the missions must fit into existing decision-making structures and that they have a clear and measurable political goal to ensure that goal achievement can be described and assessed.

The following two missions are being launched in connection with this long-term plan:

Sustainable feed

The Government has set the objective of ensuring that all feed for farmed fish and livestock shall come from renewable sources, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Food security could come under pressure from population growth, increased pressure on areas and resources, and less secure supply lines. The sustainable feed mission will help to achieve new and innovative solutions for better resource utilisation. The mission will also make an important contribution to the goals Norway has set for the climate, environment, food production, employment and value creation. The final wording of the main objective, quantification and further developing the sub-goals will be completed during the design and implementation phase in 2022/2023. The mission is described in more detail in section 3.3 under the thematic priority climate, the environment and energy.

Including more children and young people in education, employment and society

The Government will launch a mission that will include more young people in education, employment and society by employing a cross-sector and targeted approach. Exclusion of young people is a major challenge in society and entails significant costs for the individual and society. Exclusion among young adults often stems from experiences in childhood and adolescence. The final wording of the main objective, quantification and further developing the sub-goals geared towards education and qualification, health, quality of life, coping, participation and inclusion, will be done during the design and implementation phase in 2022/2023. The mission is described in more detail in section 3.6 under the thematic priority trust and community.

6.4 Further work

The two missions will be further developed and implemented during the design and implementation phase planned for 2022/2023. This phase will establish how the missions are to be organised, and ensure that the policy agencies and relevant research communities and users are properly involved in their further development. User participation will be particularly vital for ensuring that the missions have the support of the actors that will ultimately use the knowledge. The design and implementation process will clarify the budgetary framework for subsequent work on the missions.

7 Academic freedom and trust in research

Modern society is dependent on research – in the technology we use, in research-based professions, as the basis for public debate and in a wide range of other areas. We have become used to this being so, and we take it for granted in our daily lives. However, looming crises remind us of how important research is. We turn to research in the face of war, terror, health threats or a global climate crisis to understand what is happening and what our options are.

We trust research because we assume researchers are free to pursue the truth without being swayed by other considerations and because we know that all research has to undergo rigorous peer review. Researchers are also in fierce competition with each other, while they are also bound by research ethics.27 This is all conducive to trust.

A new report on this topic from Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet) emphasises, however, that we should not take this trust in research and researchers for granted, and that trust should, furthermore, not be blind.28 Research itself teaches us that established truths must be challenged. This applies both within academia and in public debate. Unquestioning trust in research is thus not desirable. However, if this trust falls too low, to a level below healthy scepticism and objective criticism, this may be a sign that something is wrong. The reasons for this should then be investigated, to determine whether an unhealthy distrust and suspicion of research has taken hold, or whether research has actually become less trustworthy, generally speaking or in specific areas.

Trust in research in Norway today is generally high.29 However, a number of detrimental trends have also been registered here in Norway in recent years. There have been reports in various contexts of pressure on academic freedom, and particularly on academic freedom of expression.30 Furthermore, although the general trust in research is high, there are clear differences in trust levels between disciplines and sections of society. Certain areas of research are perceived as controversial and are at times subject to polarised debate marked by limited objectivity.31

These challenges are the impetus for the Government’s intention to use the long-term plan to focus attention on trust. The conditions that the Government considers particularly important for maintaining a high level of trust in research going forward are set out below. The population’s high level of trust in research is, in turn, a precondition for society continuing to invest in and base its development on research-based knowledge.

7.1 Academic freedom of expression

The Ministry of Education and Research appointed an expert committee in summer 2021, chaired by Associate Professor Anine Kierulf (hereinafter referred to as the Kierulf Committee), to investigate the conditions for academic freedom of expression in Norway. The Committee presented its report in March 2022, Official Norwegian Report (NOU) 2022: 2 Academic freedom of expression – A good culture of free speech must be built from the bottom up, every single day.

The Kierulf Committee believes that academic freedom of expression is a prerequisite for any academic activity. The Committee puts it thus: ‘Free speech is the lifeblood of academia’.32 As in the preparatory works to the current provisions on academic freedom set out in Section 1-5 of the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges, the Kierulf Committee believes that the grounds for academic freedom of expression are not primarily consideration for the researchers, but society’s need to broadly trust the pursuit of truth.33 It is good for society that established truths are challenged. Other important grounds, according to the Committee, are the need for informed, democratic debate, social, cultural and political diversity, and innovation and competitiveness.34

The Kierulf Committee regards academic freedom of expression as a ‘functional aspect of both the general freedom of expression and the individual academic freedom.’35 In line with its remit, the Committee primarily concentrates on individual academic freedom of expression, understood as each academic staff member’s freedom and responsibility to express themselves on academic issues at their own discretion and in line with fundamental scientific quality requirements and research ethics.36 The Kierulf Committee believes that it is the scientific quality requirement that primarily distinguishes academic freedom of expression – which applies specifically to academic staff when they make statements in their professional capacity – from the general freedom of expression that applies to all citizens, of whom no such requirements are made. The Committee points out that the limits for the academic freedom of expression of individual employees must be deemed to be very wide. The Committee also believes that the quality requirement must be understood as a responsibility that both the individual and the professional community must address by means of open and objective debate, and not through prescribed advance control, sanctions or undue pressure.

The Kierulf Committee’s report looks at freedom of expression in research, education and dissemination, but with particular emphasis on dissemination, which, in the Committee’s opinion, receives too little attention.

Academic freedom of expression and dissemination are closely interlinked – they both function as knowledge-based, truth-seeking communication. Dissemination is important within academia, among peers and between and among the administration, staff and students. Academic free speech is also crucial for the fulfilment of academia’s broad civic mission through dissemination to the broader public – as communication of knowledge from experts to the public, and vice versa.

Based on the knowledge base available, the Kierulf Committee believes that academic freedom of expression faces numerous forms of challenges in Norway today:

Political and structural priorities, funding, rules and guidelines as a framework for academic freedom of expression, security assessments, tensions within academia, an uncollegial climate of debate, a culture of conformity, cancel culture, disagreements about quality control, and challenges in connection with external dissemination and communication, such as populism, politicisation and media challenges. A harsh debate climate can be particularly demanding, not least for those working on controversial academic topics.

The Kierulf Committee believes that individual academic freedom of expression is so fundamental that the provision that addresses this topic in the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges should be amended to ensure it is properly safeguarded. This is in line with the assessments made by the Aune Committee, which submitted proposals for a new act relating to universities and university colleges in 2020.37 The Kierulf Committee makes concrete recommendations on how this can be done. Many of the challenges discussed in the excerpt above are, however, such that they primarily require a better academic culture of free speech. This kind of culture cannot simply be created through legal provisions, it must primarily come from the academic communities themselves.

As a basis for further discussion in the academic communities and at the institutions about what constitutes a good culture of free speech, the Kierulf Committee has proposed a declaration of academic freedom of expression. The declaration sets out in brief what academic freedom of expression is, on what grounds it is based and its implications. The Kierulf Committee has also prepared ground rules for free speech that are geared towards individual academics. The declaration and these ground rules are included in appendix 1 to this long-term plan.

The Kierulf Committee also addresses some important preconditions for a good culture of free speech and dissemination activities, not least well-developed Norwegian academic language. The Committee has a number of recommendations for measures geared towards the academic institutions and communities about how academic freedom of expression can be strengthened by means of e.g. institutional strategies, wise leadership, awareness-raising about what academic freedom of expression entails, and procedures for dealing with difficult and delicate situations in academic communities.

Recommendations aimed at the authorities are discussed in more detail below.

The Government’s assessment

The Government believes that the Kierulf Committee’s report provides a through and appropriate discussion of what academic freedom of expression is and the grounds on which it is based. The report is a necessary reminder that academic freedom of expression for the individual researcher is vital for ensuring that academic activity can continue to enjoy the high level of trust it has in Norway today. The Government also believes that the report provides a good, balanced description of the challenges facing academic freedom of expression. These challenges must be taken seriously while they are still manageable. If they are played down, we run a risk of diminishing trust in research. Experience from other countries shows that this can happen in a short space of time.

The Government notes that the Kierulf Committee points to both external and internal challenges. In both cases, the management of the academic institutions plays a key role as guardians of academic freedom of expression. With respect to pressure from outside academia, be it improper interference by unprofessional clients or harassment and threats in social media, it is essential that the researchers who find themselves in such situations feel they have the support of the employer institution in exercising their academic freedom of expression. In cases where challenges arise within the academic community, e.g. strong pressure to conform or cancellation attempts, it is also important that the management takes its responsibility seriously. The management should combat use of non-academic types of sanctions and facilitate objective discussion based on a diversity of perspectives in the academic communities. Young researchers and temporary employees may find themselves in a particularly vulnerable position (see Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of the challenges posed by temporary positions).

The Government has noted the Kierulf Committee’s proposal to enshrine the institutions’ responsibility to protect academic freedom of expression in law, and agrees that this may be a relevant measure. The Government will consider how this can be done in the work on a new act relating to universities and university colleges, in light of the input from the consultation round. In that context, the Government will also consider the other legal amendments proposed by the Kierulf Committee.

The Government believes that the same fundamental conditions for academic freedom of expression must apply to research, higher education, dissemination and artistic development, and it expects all universities, university colleges, hospital trusts, regional health authorities and research institutes that receive basic allocations from the state to protect their employees’ freedom of expression. The Government also urges other academic organisations, including business and industry research entities, to safeguard academic freedom of expression.

Moreover, the Government believes that this is well founded given that the Kierulf Committee’s report places particular emphasis on dissemination, both because pressure on researchers’ freedom of expression often arises in connection with dissemination activities, and because dissemination appears to have a weaker foundation in academia today than the other academic tasks. As already mentioned, the Kierulf Committee makes several interesting points and proposals on how dissemination can be strengthened. Regarding the proposal to introduce a dissemination indicator in the funding system for state universities and university colleges, the Government will return to this point in connection with its comprehensive review of the funding system. See Proposition No 1 to the Storting (Resolution) (2022–2023) for the Ministry of Education and Research for more details. The Government also endorses the proposal to simplify the reporting system for dissemination, and will ask Sikt to start working towards this goal. The Ministry of Education and Research will raise the matter of dissemination in management dialogue with the universities and university colleges.

The Government shares the expert committee’s assessment that a good culture of free speech must be built from the bottom up, and that freedom of expression and quality assurance must be managed in day-to-day work by the academic communities through objective and critical debate. Basic statutory provisions are necessary, but a good culture of free speech requires students and employees to internalise knowledge about what freedom of expression entails, on what grounds it is based and its implications. The declaration and ground rules on free speech proposed by the Kierulf Committee in its report, together with the debate this report has created, provide a good point of departure in that respect. As the Committee also points out in its report, a well-developed Norwegian academic language is a precondition for good dissemination work. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of Norwegian academic language.

The Government expects academic institutions, and higher education institutions in particular, to attend to, in the course of their ordinary activities, the training in academic freedom of expression needed by different levels of employees and students. This could, for example, be by means of the mandatory introductory philosophy course Examen philosophicum, researcher training or management training. The Government also expects institutions that offer researcher training to consider how this training can develop the skills needed for the important academic task of dissemination. The Government will consider whether responsibility for providing training in academic freedom of expression and dissemination should be enshrined in law in connection with the proposal for a new university and university colleges act.

In recent years, academic freedom has also garnered a great deal of attention outside Norway, including in the European Research Area. The Government will promote academic freedom in all arenas where Norway participates in international work.

7.2 More about academic quality

Academic freedom is inextricably linked to a commitment to comply with scientific quality norms. This association is underlined in the title of the relevant provision in Section 1-5 of the current Act relating to Universities and University Colleges, ‘academic freedom and responsibility’ and in that institutions are obliged to maintain a ‘high professional level’. Section 1-1, Purpose of the Act, sets out that the institutions shall provide higher education, conduct research and academic and artistic development at a ‘high international level’.

The Kierulf Committee also highlights academics’ responsibility for academic quality, both as individuals and as members of research communities:

First, academics have a responsibility to adhere to the norms for scientific quality that apply in their field of research and the norms regarding objectivity and impartiality that enable debate. Second, they have a responsibility to help ensure that other academics also adhere to these norms; for example, through peer reviews and the advancement of alternative hypotheses, or by challenging ideas using counter-arguments in debates.38

The Kierulf Committee makes an important clarification on how this responsibility should be exercised, however:

…quality control of academic expressions shall be carried out by peers within the academic community, using scientific methods and relevant arguments, not by the state through the use of legal sanctions, political decisions or guidelines, nor by the academic institutions.39

This raises an important question for academic institutions, not least for universities and university colleges, with their statutory responsibility for academic quality:

How can the management of a university fulfil its responsibility for ensuring that teaching, research and academic and artistic development work maintain a high professional level and are conducted in accordance with recognised scientific, artistic, educational and ethical principles, while at the same time safeguarding and promoting the individual’s academic freedom (of expression)?40

The Kierulf Committee’s assessment is that the academic institutions, i.e. the board and management at different levels of the organisations, cannot and should not perform quality control themselves. The institutions nevertheless have a responsibility for ensuring that they are carried out ‘by peers within the academic community, using scientific methods and relevant arguments’. It is the academic management at faculty and institute level (or equivalent) that has to ensure that ongoing quality assurance is well attended to in the organisation’s day-to-day work, at the same time that the academic freedom (of expression) of each employee is safeguarded. This is a demanding balancing act, which is also why the Kierulf Committee places so much emphasis on wise management and good training.

The Government endorses the Kierulf Committee’s understanding of the institutions’ combined responsibility for academic freedom of expression and academic quality. It is therefore vital for society’s trust in research and research-based knowledge that academic quality is upheld at the institutions. It is equally important that attempts are not made to control academic quality by means of sanctions or governance instruments implemented by the institutions as employer, or by political or legal action.

With respect to the established peer review systems, which are academia’s own means of assuring academic quality through e.g. publications, projects and appointments, it must be stressed that these are under development both in Norway and abroad. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was launched in 2012. The declaration, which has since been signed by the Research Council of Norway and several other higher education and research institutions, contains a set of recommendations on good practice for quality assessment. One of the most important objectives of the declaration is to combat the tendency seen in recent years to base quality assessment on research journals’ impact factor and other quantitative indicators alone. The declaration encourages more assessment of research work based on its actual quality.

In addition to the academic communities’ peer reviews in connection with publications and appointments etc., the Research Council is responsible for conducting large national quality evaluations of Norwegian academic communities’ research activities. The evaluation work itself is carried out by international referee panels based on relevant quality criteria. NOKUT has a similar responsibility for evaluating the academic communities’ education activities. These evaluations of quality are important for strengthening the communities’ work on quality, and thus ensure that people in general can continue to have a high level of trust in research-based knowledge and skills. In order to better coordinate the quality evaluation of research and higher education, the Ministry of Education and Research established a separate framework for this purpose in 2021.41

7.3 Responsibility, involvement and use of research

Research does not take place in a vacuum. A lot of research is developed in dialogue with users and partners in different sectors of society. How research is used by, for example, political authorities, the media and business and industry, also impacts trust significantly.42 Irresponsible use and dissemination can put research in a bad light. It is therefore important to avoid tendentious renditions of research. One should also avoid selecting certain findings at the expense of others that are equally relevant based on a wish to substantiate a predetermined conclusion, whether this is done knowingly or unknowingly. This is something the media must also bear in mind. A new survey from the Institute for Social Research (ISF) shows that the most important reason for some researchers being hesitant about communicating their research is the fear of journalists presenting it in a misleading manner to make it fit with a specific journalistic angle.43

The need for responsibility in the use of research is particularly evident in connection with commissioned research. The client must exercise care to ensure academic freedom is safeguarded, while they must also naturally be free to define their knowledge needs. The client, for its part, is bound by the quality requirements that apply to research. One good means of regulating the relationship between the client and the contractor is to use the Norwegian Government’s standard agreement for research and investigation projects. The agreement is available to everyone who aims to ensure that their commissioned research is independent and has a high degree of legitimacy.

The need for responsibility is also becoming increasingly important in academic collaboration with other countries. Geopolitical developments entail a greater focus on security policy challenges, particularly linked to collaborations on technology. These developments also raise an important question of principle relating to how fundamental values and norms are upheld in collaborations with countries where the freedom to discuss or research politically sensitive issues is gradually being curtailed or is even non-existent. These issues will be elucidated in the guidelines on responsible international collaboration being prepared by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills and the Research Council on assignment for the Ministry of Education and Research.

Companies, public agencies and other users of research may find it difficult at times to determine which research to use, since the research literature in many areas is very extensive and often points in slightly different directions. As well as the difficulty of obtaining an overview, determining which research represents established knowledge with a high degree of consensus among academics and which is more uncertain or controversial can be challenging. A good tool for obtaining an overview over a research field is an evidence synthesis. See box 7.1 for more details. These evidence syntheses have been in use for some time in some sectors, particularly in the area of health.44 A systematic and balanced overview of a research field ensures legitimacy across sectors. We also reduce the risk of decisions being made on an inadequate basis, and, not least, of initiating new research in areas that have already been investigated. The Government will therefore endeavour to increase the use of evidence syntheses in public sector activities, also based on resource considerations.

Citizen science and citizen participation have been introduced in recent years, among other things, to boost the legitimacy of research by establishing closer links between research and society. For example, the EU has emphasised citizen research in the Horizon Europe framework programme, and is now testing different methods of involving citizens in research, particularly in the missions. In some areas, the trend is moving towards placing emphasis on the local context of knowledge production, particularly when knowledge is being developed with a view to local application. An example here could be using traditional knowledge to investigate issues concerning the interests of indigenous peoples. These are interesting initiatives, and the potential of such methods for strengthening trust in research should be investigated more closely in the years to come.

7.4 Other factors relating to academic freedom

In the debate on academic freedom and the consultation round for the Kierulf report, it has been pointed out several times that this topic is extensive and touches on many aspects of academic activities, including organisation, funding, management, different forms of political governance and so on. The Government agrees that safeguarding academic freedom is important in all matters that relate to academic activities. This is not limited to each academic staff member’s academic freedom of expression, which was the main topic set out in the Kierulf Committee’s remit. As the Kierulf Committee mentions, academic freedom is also linked to a range of structural factors. The policy in these areas, whether relating to funding, legislation or other matters, must be formulated with a view to safeguarding academic freedom.

It is, however, necessary to distinguish between the core academic activities, covered by Section 1-5 of the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges on academic freedom and responsibility, and other aspects of running research and higher education institutions that are not directly related to the core tasks. In Report No 19 to the Storting (2020–2021) Styring av statlige universiteter og høyskoler (‘Governance of state universities and university colleges’ – in Norwegian only), a distinction is made between academic freedom and institutional self-governance, and the report writes about the latter:

When universities and university colleges are also given institutional self-governance in non-academic matters, or matters with any significant relevance to academic freedom, this is based on self-governance resulting in higher goal attainment than more centralised governance. This means that institutional self-governance that cannot be justified on grounds of academic freedom must be understood as a form of delegated authority that requires satisfactory goal attainment over time.

Academic freedom thus does not mean that universities, university colleges and other academic institutions that are owned by the state and receive public funding are exempt from ordinary state governance. Nor is it an obstacle to political authorities developing and funding measures to achieve research policy or education policy objectives. Academic freedom primarily means that academic freedom of expression is not to be restricted by any factors other than academic quality requirements and Norwegian law, and that the political governance of public academic institutions must be such that researchers are given the scope to pursue the truth in line with their own professional judgement and with the academic norms of the academic community.

7.5 Measures

The Government will:

• ask all universities, university colleges, hospital trusts, regional health authorities and research institutes that receive basic funding from the state to safeguard their employees’ academic freedom of expression, provide the necessary training in what this freedom entails, and ensure that academic quality norms are upheld through peer reviews and lively debate in the academic communities

• ensure that academic freedom is safeguarded in the policy for research and higher education

• consider the Kierulf Committee’s proposals in connection with the Government’s draft bill for a new act relating to universities and university colleges

• help to promote academic freedom through international collaboration

• raise the matter of dissemination in management dialogue with the universities and university colleges

• ask Sikt to simplify dissemination registration

• ask the Research Council and NOKUT to coordinate their evaluation activities in line with the framework for quality evaluation

• help to increase the use of evidence syntheses in public enterprises

8 Open research and the value of data

Academic freedom depends on the public’s trust in research and higher education, and research and education actors can only earn that trust by demonstrating quality, ethical behaviour and openness, cf. Chapter 7.

Many people involved in research, business and industry, and other sectors of society still do not have open access to publicly funded scientific articles. It is not easy to access research datasets, and it is a prevailing international problem that some research findings are not quality assured as well as they could have been, had researchers shared and reused more data. Greater openness in research is important to bring about the desired changes in the evaluation of research and researchers. Easier access to data can trigger the innovation and value creation potential inherent in further use of the research data. The huge increase in datasets makes great demands of research networks, of computing power and of data infrastructure in all sectors. Data infrastructure is costly, and national and international solutions should therefore be used as much as possible.

8.1 Open access to scientific articles

Research results should be immediately available to everyone who needs them or is interested in following developments in the field, whether this enables them to do a good job or they need the knowledge as patients, next of kin or parents of school children. The Government’s goal is for all Norwegian scientific articles financed by public funding to be openly available by 2024.

The status report for higher education shows a strong increase in the number of open articles in the past decade, with around 75 per cent of articles being openly accessible in 2021. Norway participates in international collaboration through Horizon Europa, cOAlition S, Science Europe, the OECD, the Global Research Council and UNESCO to ensure that researchers are not forced to relinquish copyrights to the big publishing houses in order to get their articles published. A central principle in negotiations on publish and read agreements with the big publishing houses is that the terms and conditions of new agreements are open. Publish and read agreements entail a combined fee for a period for publishing articles openly and for reader access to journals that remain closed. The total costs will not increase, and the negotiations must be used to accelerate the transition to open access.

A shift to immediate open publication in open access journals or on open platforms is the Government’s primary goal, and a transition period entailing a double fee for publication and reading should be as short as possible. Efforts are required on several fronts going forward if this ambition is to be achieved. Sikt must continue working on a knowledge base for developing open access publishing and on preparing analyses of the finances involved. Publish and read agreements will continue to be an important tool in this transition, and the opportunities for making research available via science archies must be strengthened, but the main focus must be on achieving open publication channels that researchers perceive as good and conferring merit.

8.2 Research data are public information

Research data from publicly funded data must on the whole be considered public information on a par with data from other publicly-funded activities. In its consideration of Report No 22 to the Storting (2020–2021) Data som ressurs: Datadrevet økonomi og innovasjon (‘Data as a resource: data-driven economy and innovation’ – in Norwegian only), a unanimous Storting endorsed four national principles for sharing and using data: 1) Data must be open when possible, and protected when necessary 2) Data should be available, findable, usable and be possible to collate with other data,3) Data should be shared and used in a way that generates value for business and industry, the public sector and society as a whole, and 4) Data shall be shared and used in such a manner that fundamental rights and freedoms are respected, and Norwegian civic values are upheld.

Research data are included in the EU Open Data Directive, which is set to be implemented in Norway. The directive sets out that publicly funded research data shall be free of charge if published by researchers, research-performing organisations or if research-funding organisations have already made them publicly available through an institutional or subject-based repository.45

Europe is in the process of establishing the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC). The EOSC is a system of research infrastructures and digital platforms. The goal is for these infrastructures and platforms to communicate well and to work in such a manner that researchers experience them as open and seamless services for storing, managing, analysing and reusing research data. This means that Norwegian solutions and research data must comply with the internationally established FAIR principles, which dictate that data must be findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable. Norwegian infrastructure must be compatible with international infrastructure and must take account of future data growth and needs for data sources to be collated both nationally and internationally.

8.3 The digital research foundation – research network and supercomputers

The research network is the internet connection for students, researchers and employees in the knowledge sector, where researchers work together and share data and results. The Norwegian research network is managed by Sikt. The network is currently used by 150 organisations in the university and university college sector, institutes, vocational colleges, science centres and business and industry organisations, and has some 300,000 users. There are 125 research networks across the world, including the Norwegian one. International collaboration means that there are particularly good, close connections between these networks, which enable them to offer all the network qualities that research and higher education need. The national research network provides access to all these networks, and to all the user services that have been developed and are available both nationally and internationally. The current network capacity agreements were entered into in 2003 and new agreements must be signed in 2023/2024.

High Performance Computing (HPC), including high-capacity data analyses, machine learning and artificial intelligence, involves thousands of computer processors working in parallel to compute and analyse huge quantities of data in real time. This kind of extensive computing cannot be performed on ordinary computers. Supercomputers are needed for this purpose.

Supercomputers have traditionally been used in research in science and mathematics, but have gradually been adopted in most disciplines, including social sciences and the humanities. The development of artificial intelligence depends on this type of hardware. Supercomputers are also being used more and more in public administration. For example, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health used this type of technology in its computing of various coronavirus-related issues during the pandemic.

Every research institution used to have its own supercomputer for High Performance Computing. There was no common strategy, and they mostly competed for the same funding. In 2004, the Universities in Oslo, Bergen and Tromsø, along with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim and the then Ministry of Education and Research, agreed to establish a company to coordinate HPC and storage. Funding comes from the four universities and the Research Council. The company has now changed its name to Sigma2 AS. It is owned by Sikt and has been assigned strategic and operational responsibility for national supercomputers. The infrastructure is available to all institutions that need this type of HPC, data storage and pertaining services.

Through Sigma2, Norway has helped to develop one of the biggest supercomputers in the world, LUMI, in Kajaani, Finland. This collaboration involves ten countries, and the project has received NOK 1 billion in funding from the EU EuroHPC programme.46 Sigma2 is also involved in the network of European HPC national competence centres. This network and the HPC centres shall help industry and the public sector to start using high performance computing services in their business models and to engage in innovation and knowledge building by providing support and competence-sharing.

Supercomputers are now an absolute necessity for engaging in high-quality research and also more lately for efficient and expedient public administration. Increasing amounts of valuable data are generated, which requires this type of up-to-date infrastructure.

8.4 The digital foundation for the Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service

The Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service coordinates admission to 27 universities and university colleges, and 27 vocational colleges. It was among the first organisations to digitalise its solutions, and it plays a vital role in the admission process to higher education. While the technology has advanced, the Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service’s computer systems have not followed suit. The systems that were developed in the 1990s and early 2000s are outdated and old-fashioned in 2022.

In 2023, Sikt and HK-dir will continue planning the development of a new system. The objective of the project is to develop a secure, reliable and forward-looking system for admission to higher education and tertiary vocational education in the years to come.

8.5 Information security

A lot of research infrastructure is digital infrastructure or depends on digital infrastructure to work. This infrastructure manages and processes large assets. Examples of such assets could be large amounts of sensitive personal data, research data in the form of raw data, processed data and research results, ICT systems and e-infrastructure. These digital assets make research and education possible. The digital assets have different security needs according to whether they concern confidential information, data and systems that must work and be available in critical processes or information that must be intact and trustworthy. Some digital assets are invaluable and cannot be recreated, for example long research data time series. Information security shall help to maintain trust in the knowledge that is generated and managed by the institutions and thus also trust in the institutions themselves. Each research-performing institution is responsible for ensuring that information security and protection of privacy safeguard these assets. The responsibility for information security and protection of privacy in research and education assigned to the Ministry of Education and Research is followed up in its governance model for this. The model organises the Ministry of Education and Research’s and HK-dir’s responsibility and governance processes in relation to the underlying higher education and research organisations in the area of information security and protection of privacy. An annual risk and status report for the university and university college sector ensures a common understanding of the situation and provides a basis for the Ministry of Education and Research to adopt risk-reducing measures for the sector and provide individual feedback to the individual organisation.

8.6 Data infrastructure

Up-to-date data infrastructure is needed to encourage sustainable and ethically responsible data-driven research, public administration and value creation in Norway. By data infrastructure is meant the tools, services and systems necessary for obtaining, analysing, storing, organising, documenting and providing access to data.

The need for up-to-date infrastructure has been pointed out in a number of reports in recent years,47 and what is referred to as the Data Infrastructure Committee presented its report concerning Investering i infrastrukturer for FAIR forskningsdata og særlig relevante forvaltningsdata for forskning (‘Investment in infrastructure for FAIR research data and public administration data of particular relevance to research’ – in Norwegian only) in May 2022.48 The committee comprised representatives from research institutions and public bodies with responsibility for research data of particular relevance to research and business and industry. The committee has made use of the aforementioned reports and reports on, and initiatives for, sharing of health data, socio-economic data, marine data, and climate and environmental data as the background for its recommendation on the level of ambition for data infrastructure in Norway:

• researchers at Norwegian universities and institutes shall have access to data infrastructures that enable world-class research and education

• by 2030, expertise, guidance and curation of research data shall be made available to all disciplines in Norway, either in the form of national solutions or through full or partial participation in European or international infrastructure collaboration

• in selected areas, Norway shall have world-class data infrastructures that are preferred by international users

• Norway must have an escalation plan for organising and funding data infrastructures that makes it possible to reap the benefits of the huge amounts of data that will be generated with public funding in the years to come

The Government’s assessment is that the Data Infrastructure Committee’s proposed level of ambitions is realistic, while it also gives us something to strive for. Great investments have already been made in data infrastructure in Norway, and we can continue to build on them, with better national and international coordination. Norway is already doing very well in some areas, and can be ambitious about taking the final step towards offering world-class data infrastructure which is preferred by international users.

8.7 The Government’s policy

We need greater openness and more data sharing in research to realise the goals of the long-term plan. The digital research foundation, which comprises the research network and supercomputers, must be further developed in step with the needs of research and the public administration. The infrastructure for the Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service must be updated. Information security and protection of privacy must be safeguarded to ensure fundamental rights and freedoms are respected and national security is addressed. Updated data infrastructure is needed, and work on a broad front is required to raise competence with respect to data management.

8.8 Measures

The Government will:

• ensure that publicly funded research is available and that all higher education institutions have open access publication schemes

• ask HR-dir, Sikt and the Research Council to help the research institutions devise a strategy for Norwegian scientific publication after 2024 and a plan for achieving the goals of this strategy

• ensure that Norway has an up-to-date research network

• ensure sufficient national computing capacity (supercomputers) to meet the present and future needs of research and the public administration

• continue the work of developing a new technical system for the Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service

• base future work on data infrastructure on the Data Infrastructure Committee’s recommendations

9 University and university college buildings

High-quality research and education is contingent on buildings that are suited to developing and disseminating knowledge, identity and values. The university and university college sector has 3.6 million m² at its disposal, and thus has the biggest portfolio in the central government civilian sector. Around 2.7 million m² are owned by the state, while some premises are rented in the private market.

In the first long-term plan – Report No 7 to the Storting (2014–2015) Long-term Plan for Research and Higher Education 2015–2024 – the Government prioritised two building projects that are particularly important in order to achieve the goals set out in the plan: The Life Science Building in Oslo and the Ocean Space Centre in Trondheim. The Life Science Building is under construction and is scheduled for completion in 2026. The building will promote broad research collaboration between the education sector and health, business and industry actors in applied life science. The Ocean Space Centre was awarded initial construction appropriation in 2022 and is scheduled for completion in 2028. The centre will cement Norway’s position as a leading ocean nation and contribute to the green transition.

In the long-term plan presented in 2018 – Report No 4 to the Storting (2018–2019) Long-term Plan for Research and Higher Education 2019–2028 – a special policy for developing, managing and prioritising university and university college buildings was established for the first time. Its main conclusion was that we must use the areas available in the best possible manner. This means that we must organise efficient premises that support the organisations’ purposes.

Developments in research and education mean that the need to adapt rooms and buildings, and the pertaining organisation of activities and services, must constantly be considered. Digitalisation is bringing about changes in study habits and learning preferences, which the universities and university colleges must meet to stay relevant. One thing we learned from the coronavirus pandemic was that education in future should combine physical attendance and digital options to promote learning, the learning environment, flexibility and sustainability. The physical and technological infrastructure must be organised to support physical, fully digital and hybrid teaching. Campus developments and teaching areas must therefore be adapted to different study situations. These areas and digital solutions must also be designed to support both individual work and group works in open and more ‘informal’ areas. Campus development plans are an important tool for enabling the institutions to adapt their premises to changing needs in a systematic manner. The scheme will be evaluated in 2022.

10 Financial and administrative consequences

Norwegian research policy sets out a target for resource use on research and development (R&D) defined in per cent. The target is that 3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) should go to R&D by 2030. One per cent should come from publicly funded R&D, and double that from business and industry. This target must be assessed over time and based on a normal situation, not on exceptional situations that generate strong positive or negative effects. The Government will present a strategy to achieve research and development in business and industry equal to 2 per cent of GDP by 2030.

The Ministry of Education and Research estimates that R&D allocations in the Government’s national budget proposal for 2023 will total NOK 43.6 billion. This is 0.77 per cent of the GDP estimate for 2023.

Financial follow-up of the long-term plan will be addressed in the annual national budgets.

Looking ahead, the Government expects resource use to be geared towards the objectives and priorities in the long-term plan. The ministries will follow up implementation of the long-term plan in their management dialogue with the Research Council of Norway, the Directorate for Higher Education and Skills, Sikt – Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research, universities, university colleges and other relevant underlying organisations.