44 / 130
• In Sweden, external bodies provide just over 50% of the research funding, while in the
more successful reference countries most of the resources for research are at the
universltles' own disposal, particularty so in the Netherlands and Switzerland. This high
dependence on extemal funding at Swedish universities overshadows research priorities
by universities, and emphasis is otten laid on how to obtain funding rather !han on which
research priorities to select. In fact. successful scientists are more or less fully dependent
of external funding (otten including their
own
salaries) and use the university more or less
as a "research hotel".
• More successful universities in the reference countries have developed systems for
quality control as the basis for distributinQI faculty resources. In Swedish universities, !his
control is not equally rigorous.
• The leadership of Swedish universities has developed towards administration
(management) rather than exercising a genuine academic authority at different levels.
We do not see the same erosion of the academic leadership in the more successful
countries, where the leadership has recru tment, otten international, high on the agenda.
• An alarming shortcoming of Swedish research is the universities' inability to provide good
and clear career opportunities for young researchers. By contras!, universities in
Switzerland and the Netherlands are distinguished by having tenure-track positions with
good basic funding for young researcher.
Clearly, Swedish universities do not have the breath of high quality research as we find in
many universities of the more successful reference countries. This is apparently due to a
range of reasons. virtually systemic in nature: policy decisions made at national level: the
way in which the funding system has developed; an insufficient focus on academic
leadership; too little focus on steering priorities towards top academic quality by international
comparison. The heavy dependence on external funding from a range of sources is likely to
have pushed in this direction.
In the Academy Report (1), we emphasise a number of key factors to foster academic
excellence. These are:
• Strong academic leadership at all levels with focus on establishing creative research
environments composed of scientists with complementary skills.
• lntemationally competitive recruitment must be high on the leadership agenda.
• Provide good career opportunities for young researchers; establish a competitive tenure–
track system with adequate basic funding.
• Emphasise mobility in recruitment in order to strengthen creativity among individuals in a
research environment.
• Provide, competitive funding systems with dear missions and long-term perspectives.
• Find a balance between on one hand the bottom-up support of independent research by
individuals and interactive research environments, and on the other hand the more tap–
down determined strategic research endeavours.
• University floor funding/external funding should not be lower !han 3/2 in a healthy
research system with universities and e)demal funders having complementary roles in
supporting groundbreaking research; universities take responsibility for competitive
recruitment and long term core funding, while external funders support projects and major
national initiatives on a competitive basis.
42