Centres of excellence as a tool for capacity building

INTRODUCTION

This is a synthesis report bringing together the results from the project on Centres of Excellence as a tool for capacity building It presents:

 an overview of the Centre of Excellence (CoE) concept for research funding and the concept of capacity building in research for developing countries

 a framework for the description and analysis of CoE schemes in support of the selection of such schemes

 an empirical account of 12 CoE schemes following the framework

 an analysis of these schemes in terms of capacity building in developing countries following the framework

The framework is based on a literature review and a 2012 OECD study of CoE initiatives It was refined and validated through case studies of 12 CoE schemes across 6 countries Developed as both a methodological aid for country studies and an analytical tool, the framework offers guidance on the institutional conditions for CoEs and the typical capacities and impacts they can generate.

This report is organized into several key sections Section 2 analyzes and defines the project's objectives Section 3 offers a concise overview of research related to the CoE mechanism and capacity building challenges Section 4 details the methodological framework and analytical model employed in the research Section 5 summarizes the different types of CoE, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses as tools for capacity building Finally, an appendix presents 12 country case studies based on the analytical model discussed in Section 4.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT

This report outlines the policy and institutional requirements for establishing and managing various types of Centers of Excellence (CoEs) to meet specific policy needs Additionally, it will cover key points related to these requirements.

(a) The construction of the CoE funding instrument and its possible implications on the policy/institutional level

(b) The identification of factors that would enable CoEs to generate excellent research and to build capacity in prioritised areas in developing countries

(c) The extent to which, and under what conditions, the CoE mechanism is relevant to the needs of developing countries.

CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE AND CAPACITY BUILDING

The CoE concept and the objectives of CoEs

Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are organizational environments dedicated to achieving high standards in research, innovation, and learning, making them attractive for research and development investments and talent They excel in absorbing and generating new knowledge, which they ideally distribute as enhanced capabilities in their fields, including research outcomes, innovations, and skilled personnel CoEs are often geographically concentrated in high-potential areas of science and industry, but they can also operate as virtual networks of cooperative partners with a coordinating center Their size can vary significantly, ranging from local R&D groups to extensive regional networks involving hundreds of researchers, as defined by various funding organizations.

CoE schemes generally align with various academic and socio-economic objectives, primarily categorized into those aimed at achieving scientific excellence, stimulating technological innovation, and addressing broader social goals such as policy support and regional development Additionally, some CoEs focus on educational and learning outcomes, which are increasingly integrated into the CoE framework, particularly in developing countries Despite differing strategic orientations, all CoEs share a commitment to excellence, characterized by high research quality, productivity, resource attraction, international visibility, and strong governance These criteria are essential for advancing strategic goals related to innovation and social impact.

What is excellence?

Defining markers of excellence in Centers of Excellence (CoEs) include a sound governance structure that promotes autonomy and self-direction, as highlighted by Balderston (1995) He emphasizes that long-term viability hinges on these components, alongside a widely accepted commitment to academic values Balderston acknowledges, with some reservations, the significance of peer judgment in assessing excellence within these institutions.

Excellence in a field is defined by the standards set by knowledgeable peers, emphasizing the importance of peer recognition Key factors that contribute to this perspective include the capacity to attract top academic talent, a selective recruitment process, and a collaborative approach to resource allocation among colleagues.

Balderston highlights that while excellence is associated with selective, critical, fundamental, cosmopolitan, and long-range values, there are trade-offs that may challenge these ideals One significant concern is the risk of over-investing in narrow, basic projects with lengthy development periods, which could jeopardize an institution's survival Additionally, there is a question of compatibility between these excellence values and more democratic goals, such as local engagement and social improvements To navigate these challenges, Balderston proposes three key institutional criteria for selecting excellence programs.

(a) compatibility of aims between the programme and its institutional context

(b) effectiveness and mutual reinforcement of programmes at that location or in the broad institutional context of the centre

(c) acceptability to the centre’s most important constituencies

These values combine an organisational and a collegial rationale for excellence

Balderston’s points are mainly relevant at a strategic level, however several authors also point towards fairly concrete organisational and group aspects of excellence For example Hemlin et al

A review of various studies on research climate highlights that effective leadership, characterized by clear objectives, visionary guidance, inclusive participation, and careful staff selection, is crucial for fostering excellent research environments Similar to Balderston's findings, it underscores the importance of cultivating a strong research culture and climate, which significantly enhances the quality of research outputs Furthermore, both internal and external communication are strongly linked to high performance, while diversity in age and background also plays a vital role in achieving success.

In their classic cross-discipline study on research laboratories in the United States, Pelz and Andrews

In 1966, it was highlighted that interaction among scientific colleagues significantly enhances productivity, with joint goal setting being crucial for Centers of Excellence (CoEs) Effective intra-organizational communication is vital for research productivity, and while it may not always result in organizational consensus, a shared enthusiasm for similar challenges is a key factor for success.

Heinze et al (2009) conducted a contemporary study on creative research groups in nanotechnology and genetics, revealing that extra-mural collaborations significantly enhance research excellence beyond previous assumptions Successful research groups leverage extensive collaborative networks, bridging gaps between diverse peers and fostering multidisciplinary interactions The study highlights that scientists positioned at the intersection of various research groups can produce more original work due to access to a wider range of perspectives and knowledge (Burt, 2004) However, this position may not be ideal for disseminating new ideas, as cohesive collaborative groups and high-trust networks are often more effective for this purpose (Fleming et al., 2007) This creates a dilemma for evaluation, as both diversity and cohesion are essential in research groups, though the optimal balance may differ.

Excellence in research is closely linked to funding outcomes, as highlighted by Laudel (2006) In a qualitative study involving German and Australian physicists, key conditions for securing funding were identified, focusing on specific aspects of research centers or programs Factors influencing funding included the diversity of the research topic's funding landscape, the flexibility in research direction, and the availability of collaborators Additionally, the quality of the program's scientists—such as their research significance, continuity, prior research volume, reputation, and proposal quality—played a crucial role in promoting funding success.

Laudel emphasizes that not all conditions for promoting research are related to quality While mainstream and low-risk fundraising knowledge is crucial for acquiring funds, it does not necessarily indicate scientific excellence Hornbostel (2001) argues that external funding can only serve as a valid indicator of excellence under specific conditions: when such funding is prevalent in the field, a qualified peer-review system is in place, there is a diverse mix of resources, and the necessary research infrastructure is available.

External funding presents a complex cause-effect relationship, making it unclear whether it signifies scientific excellence or is merely a byproduct of it This ambiguity raises questions about the long-term benefits of such funding For example, competitive external funding may actually hinder quality by promoting mainstream approaches and short-term goals in research (Whitley & Glọser, 2007) Additionally, the notion that external income serves as evidence of scientific quality is challenged by the "resource-mediated Mathew effects," where financial resources tend to generate more funding (Gillett, 1991).

Capacity building, research and developing countries

Capacity building lacks a singular definition, but a general consensus has emerged over time According to UNESCO (2005), capacity refers to the ability of individuals, organizations, and systems to perform functions efficiently, effectively, and sustainably.

In the context of development, capacity building refers to the enhancement of individuals, groups, institutions, and societies to effectively perform essential functions, address challenges, and achieve goals while understanding and managing their development needs sustainably This study draws on the framework provided by the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP), which categorizes the key aspects of capacity building for development.

(a) Human resource development: providing the skills, information, knowledge and training to enable actors to perform effectively

Organisational development involves the creation and refinement of management processes, structures, and procedures within organizations, while also considering their interactions with key stakeholders, including the business community and government entities.

(c) Institutional and legal framework development: creating and maintaining legal and institutional arrangements that enable organisations, institutions and agencies to enhance their capacities (IIEP,

Capacity building in the research and higher education sectors is essential for the overall development of society, particularly in developing countries where public investment often balances scientific and social goals Scientific aspirations focus on achieving international recognition and academic excellence, while social objectives aim to enhance industrial capacity, educate the workforce, and tackle national challenges This duality is complicated by the notion that scientific capacity itself is a vital social goal, integral to sustainable development and institutional growth Kearney (2009) identifies seven values derived from research investments that can yield significant social and economic benefits.

 provision of local analysis and advice

 identification of relevant research agendas

 critical thinking in higher education

 evidence-based criticism and debate for policy making

 capacity to train future generations of researchers

 stimulation of national innovation systems

In developing countries, research capacity is often centralized in larger higher education institutions (HEIs), which are tasked with promoting a national commitment to research and developing research skills However, this centralized system, characterized by initially weak capacity, faces significant challenges, including the misallocation of research resources, the pressures of rapidly expanding higher education, and the fragmentation of research efforts To address these issues, a potential strategy involves creating critical mass in select research areas or adopting a Center of Excellence (CoE) approach to strengthen research capacity in fields where the country has existing strengths.

Centres of Excellence (CoEs) play a crucial role in capacity building for developing countries by fostering human resource development, enhancing organizational capacity, and establishing a robust institutional and legal framework in research and higher education They can effectively bridge scientific and social agendas, contributing to innovation and socio-economic development This report will further explore the organization of the study to understand the underlying logic of CoE initiatives and their efforts to achieve diverse capacity goals.

METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK

The research framework

The study's terms of reference outline a specific problem, its context, and key relationships, serving as a foundation for creating the analytical framework and case studies These elements are detailed in Section 2 and enable the identification of five empirical objectives for the country case studies, which support the development of the analytical framework and synthesis.

(a) A characterisation of the strategic aims of the CoE funding instrument

(b) A characterisation of the CoE funding instrument itself, including its operational/institutional conditions such as those relating to funding, evaluation and governance

(c) A characterisation and assessment of the relationship between the strategic aims and the CoE schemes

(d) A characterisation of the actual and potential effects of the CoE on capacity building

(e) An assessment of whether these effects are relevant to and adequate for capacity building

The analytical framework serves as a guide for developing case studies and offers a tool to identify the necessary policies and operational requirements for establishing and managing various types of Centers of Excellence (CoEs) aimed at capacity building.

A comprehensive understanding of the assumptions underlying a Center of Excellence (CoE) scheme is essential, particularly regarding its specific goals and the institutional and organizational frameworks that shape it It is important to outline the available CoEs, detailing their diverse purposes and organizational structures, while also assessing their potential to achieve capacity objectives and generate other beneficial outcomes.

This study employs an analytical framework to explore the relationships between the strategic orientation of a Center of Excellence (CoE) scheme and its operational conditions, including funding, evaluation mechanisms, and governance solutions The framework aims to assess how effectively a CoE translates its strategic goals into tangible outputs, such as enhanced research capacity and training The mutual dependence between strategic orientation and institutional conditions is illustrated by a bi-directional arrow, while the uncertainty of impacts and capacity building is represented by a dotted line encircling these outcomes.

Figure 1: An analytical framework for CoE schemes in capacity building

The analytical categories used in the initial two boxes are based on prior research conducted by the OECD and other scholars, including Orr et al (2011), Aksnes et al (2012), and Hellström (2011) These categories, which focus on impacts and capacity building, are adaptable and may encompass a variety of additional categories.

- technology/innovation, technical co-operation

- internationalisation (foreign direct investment, joint ventures, network participation, research partnerships)

For a more comprehensive account of dimensions of impacts and capacity to be employed in this project see OECD (2009)

The hypothesis suggests that various combinations of strategic and institutional support elements with specific types of CoE schemes can lead to distinct outcomes in terms of impacts and capacity Ideally, these combinations should be informed by the analysis of existing schemes and their effects However, many current impacts remain uncertain and are often reported in an impressionistic manner, which is common for emerging policy initiatives It typically takes years for research policy impacts to materialize Consequently, the reported impacts and capacity-building effects should be viewed as part of a preliminary program theory for the respective CoE schemes, which has yet to be thoroughly validated While some impacts may be actual, many are considered likely or desirable by policymakers and are included in the evaluation Terms of Reference.

This report examines the CoE schemes, emphasizing the relationship between the schemes and their projected versus actual capacity and impacts The discussion will also include an analysis of the relevant policy and institutional context.

Data collection and analysis

To evaluate the effectiveness of CoE schemes for capacity building, it was essential to gather and present detailed data on pertinent issues While the framework identified several relevant dimensions of a CoE scheme, some empirical case studies extended beyond this framework, and certain areas were excluded due to insufficient information Additionally, the relationships among the three areas depicted in Figure 1 were sometimes based on publicly available data, while in other cases, they required inference or hypothesis from the available information.

Data collection for the study adhered to the analytical framework for Centers of Excellence (CoE) in capacity building, although the large number of schemes necessitated the selection of representative examples Table 1 outlines the schemes included, chosen based on their representation of the diversity within the case-study country Information was gathered through public documentation and interviews, with additional insights obtained from evaluation reports and application documents The selected CoE schemes were categorized into three main types: Category A for basic and strategic research, Category B for innovation and technological development, and Category C for social development The aim was to ensure good country representation within each category, including at least one initiative from a developing country It is important to note that some CoE schemes may not fit neatly into a single category, as indicated by hybridization and overlap in their classifications.

Table 1 CoE schemes included in the study

A Basic research  Linneus Environments (The Swedish Research

 University Grants Commission Inter University Centres (India) (A)

 Networks of Centres of Excellence (Canada) (A- B)

 Australian Research Council Centres of Excellence (Australia) (A-C)

B Innovation and advanced technological development

 Strategic Research Centers for Industry and Society, Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) (Sweden) (B-A)

 Indian Science Agencies Centres of Excellence (India) (B)

 Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (Canada) (B-C)

 VINN Excellence Center (VINNOVA, Sweden) (B- C)

C Social and economic development  The DST/NRF Centres of Excellence programme

(Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation, South Africa) (C- A)

 Centres of Research Excellence (New Zealand) (C-A)

 Business-Led Networks of Centres of Excellence Program (Canada) (C-B-A)

 The Cooperative Research Centres Programme (Australia) (C)

The case studies outlined in Appendix A adhere to the analytical framework detailed in the preceding model, following the sequence indicated in Table 1 A comprehensive summary of these cases will be provided in the subsequent section.

This article synthesizes the key aspects of each category based on the model, summarizing the distinct types of Centers of Excellence (CoE) It highlights their defining characteristics, integration within the model, and the implications for enhancing development capacity.

Finally a summary discussion provides suggestions and recommendations about comparative advantages and disadvantages of these three categories of CoEs for development capacity.

SYNTHESIS SUMMARY OF THE COE TYPES

CoEs for basic and strategic research

There are four main strategic aims that recur with this type of CoE All are connected to basic and to some extent advanced strategic research, but in different ways

1 To create support for basic and advanced strategic research This can be defined as support for

“frontier fields of science” and “internationally competitive (world class) research” capabilities and is the main aim for this category of CoE

2 To connect researchers across fields and geographical locations, including support for multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary research

3 To connect the science system to international research networks This includes developing partnerships with scientifically strong environments in other countries and thereby creating the conditions for improvement of international standing in selected fields of knowledge

4 To support scientific prioritisation in the science system This can be done either top down, by funding CoEs in areas of national priority, or bottom up, by inviting applications in order to identify where in fact national research capacity resides One explicit aim common to many of the CoEs in this study was also to provide HEIs with an incentive to prioritise within their organisations, by means of co-funding and other types of commitments

Institutional supporting and operational mechanisms

 Competitive funding where typically HEIs submit proposals after a local pre-selection Funds are then granted to the HEI or the CoE

 Two-phase application processes involving letters of intent (LOIs) or expressions of interest (EOIs) followed by a final proposal

 Five to 10 year funding, extending up to 15 years in some cases

 Matching funding of up to 50% by host HEIs and partner organisations

 Selection by disciplinary or multidisciplinary committee, by international peer committee or a combination of these

The selection criteria evaluate applicants based on several key factors, including the quality of their research and programs, the caliber of the investigator, the potential for scientific innovation, the commitment of the host institution, the strength of networking and partnerships, national academic visibility, and their contributions to national objectives.

After securing funding, evaluations are carried out through annual financial and operational reviews, mid-term assessments that emphasize academic outcomes and operations, and final evaluations that concentrate on results and impacts The findings from these evaluations can influence future funding decisions.

 CoEs may be subject to a reduction or increase in funds during the funding term depending on performance

 Oversight by funder (research council), group of councils or ministry/government committee

Many Centers of Excellence (CoEs) have the freedom to organize themselves, but they must prioritize transparent decision-making, diversity, and formal communication Additionally, it is essential to establish an effective advisory and governing board, along with a formal link between CoE leadership and the leadership of the higher education institution or host organization.

 Critical mass in terms of scientific excellence in promising research areas of national importance (enhancing national research capacity)

 Strategic capacity for developing and acting on new research opportunities

 International visibility through research excellence and attracting front-line international research talent

 International benchmarking to evaluate the research work at these centres enables universities to attain the benchmarks of excellence in academic institutions

 Creation of funding mechanisms to improve the quality of research and teaching, and modernising infrastructure

 Research infrastructure development in some niche areas, and national or international co- operation using that infrastructure

 Increased international collaborations, partnerships and visibility, including research, training and knowledge-transfer programmes

 Support of researcher-to-researcher collaboration, through organised programme strategies and tasks as well as stronger leadership and decision-making processes at the structural level of the networks

 Improved national research networks and co-operation

 Cross-sector partnerships including triple-helix type partnerships (i.e partnerships between researchers, the public sector and private sector), such as collaboration with strategic agencies and end users

 Professionalisation of research (including journal publishing, peer review, high-quality postgraduate and postdoctoral training, mentoring, conference attendance)

 Improvement of the quality of teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels

 Development of scientific leadership in the organisation of research

 Transfer of research and development capacity across sectors through cross-sector partnerships

 Research utilisation and commercialisation through patents and licensing or spin-off firms

 Outreach through interaction with the local community.

CoEs for innovation and advanced technological development

There are three basic strategic aims for this category of CoE:

1 The overarching goal is to support strategic and applications-oriented research and expertise with potential industrial applications This means supporting internationally competitive research and development in strategic and applied science (including medicine) with the aim of generating innovation Sometimes this is done with a focus on government-defined priority areas, but not always

2 Bringing together the complementary resources needed for technical development and industrial application This includes concentrating multidisciplinary competence in particular areas of research in order to further the development of products, processes and services, typically by focusing on problems that demand larger efforts than can be provided by smaller projects

3 Bridging the gap between researchers and users, and stimulating and strengthening triple-helix relationships This is in order to increase the likelihood of scientific research being used by industry, and in order to make the university generally more responsive to industry needs Expertise development and PhD training in areas of industry interest is one of the aims in this regard

Institutional supporting and operational mechanisms

 Two- or three-stage selection processes including pre-proposals An international panel makes the final selection; occasionally there is a review by a private-sector advisory board

 Five to 10 year funding timelines, where the funder provides 40% - 100% (typically 50%) of total funding and the remainder is matched by the host HEI and external stakeholders

 A gradual decrease in base funding to the benefit of external partners where funding exists

 In-kind contributions from external and cross-sectoral partners, such as infrastructure and expertise

 In some cases there are no requirements to attract matching funding although industry co- operation may be a funding condition

 Pre-proposals are evaluated on the basis of their strategic fit with the programme

The evaluation process focuses on scientific merit, structural potential, and organizational viability, as well as the alignment with the host Higher Education Institution (HEI) Key criteria include innovation capabilities for research commercialization, national competitiveness, sustainable growth, skill modernization, and the dissemination of best practices to industry Additionally, business plan assessments may be conducted.

 There will be mid-term and final evaluations as well as annual reviews focusing on financial and operational aspects

 CoEs must usually be formally located in an HEI

Governance encompasses a variety of structures, including steering committees, international advisory boards, and a blend of ministerial oversight with local leadership groups It often features mixed governance boards that include business partners, which may necessitate a majority of external partners or representation from relevant stakeholders.

 Demands for specific organisational forms are generally weak, however requirements may include coherent milieus (“under one roof”), unitary leadership, multidisciplinary teams and integration with the host HEI

 The structure must be able to manage complex research and commercialisation activities Often the structure may be flexible, consisting of several smaller research groups

 Centres sometimes have to plan for and use part of their budget for co-operation

 Attraction of international research talent

 Mobilising complementary expertise from traditionally separate fields to solve specific problems

Enhancing research and innovation capabilities at the crossroads of science, engineering, and industry is essential for fostering leadership in specialized fields of science and technology that address specific industry demands.

Enhancing the research capacity of higher education institutions (HEIs) and host organizations is crucial for improving research training and foundational education Additionally, the establishment of specialized centers can significantly bolster university-based scientific infrastructure.

 Creation and strengthening of international research networks, including joint centres with foreign research institutes

 Engagement of senior private-sector talent on the governing boards, and recruitment of adjunct industry professors to forge industry-academic links

 Increased domestic co-operation, for example with national research institutes and other firms, organisations, sectors and regions of the country

 Triple-helix type partnerships and creation of sector-specific interfaces with research users in areas of strategic importance

 Strengthened international position of national companies through participation in worldwide S&T activities in their respective domains

 Infrastructure creation used by academics and industry partners alike, facilitating access for university academics and students to important research infrastructure in industry

 Development of national PhD training in emerging technical front-line subjects

 Training PhDs for industrial and university recruitment Training, imparting skills and creating a specialised human resource base involving interdisciplinary perspectives

Disseminating expertise and skills through public-private partnerships is essential, as it involves collaboration between the business sector and professional training initiatives This approach not only enhances the capabilities of various stakeholders but also facilitates the employment of graduates from Centers of Excellence (CoE) in partner industries.

 Opportunities for research training to be conducted within the actual process of commercialisation

 Technology development for industry utilisation, for example new products, processes and services; and the development of prototype components (such as nanomaterials) and components for use in industrial product development

 Demonstration projects validating how new components or processes can be integrated into products or production processes

To foster a dynamic two-way exchange of knowledge and explore market opportunities, it is essential to build adequate user capacity This process involves the effective transfer of innovative ideas across different sectors, which can ultimately result in the development of new products and services.

 Creation of new research-based firms and support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), including incubator space, technological validation and venture capital

 Growing and retaining domestic companies by accelerating and otherwise stimulating technology transfer

 Attracting investment, including foreign direct and venture capital investments

5.3 CoEs for social and economic development

The strategic aims of these CoEs can be summarised as follows:

1 To achieve distinction in research and world-class research capacity, but with an aim to addressing social and economic issues of national importance and generating qualified human resource capacity Rather than exclusively focusing on supporting basic science capability and industrial innovation, this mainly includes improving the skills of researchers across the community and training young researchers in areas of national priority

2 To stimulate specialisation and competence in the higher education system Specifically, by developing research-led teaching in the higher education system, developing training programmes and increasing collaboration within the system Developing new relationships between HEIs and communities (including triple-helix type relationships) are also included here

3 To stimulate academic-industry collaboration including user-driven research collaboration addressing national and global challenges By stimulating research and networks supporting social problem solving as well as product development and business development, CoEs can promote local knowledge transfer In contrast to opposed to the previous category, the emphasis here is on engagement with SMEs rather than working with more established industry partners

Institutional supporting and operational mechanisms

 Open and competitive calls based on themes of national importance

 Two-stage application processes including LOIs and full application

 Funding of up to 5-10 years duration, sometimes extended to 15 years

Industry and government partners may provide up to 50% co-funding, with some host higher education institutions (HEIs) being exempt from this requirement Potential funding sources encompass returns on patents, research contracts, and various external or government contributions.

Discipline-specific committees and international experts select schemes based on various criteria, including the strength of the application and business plan, the degree of multidisciplinary collaboration, and the availability of complementary resources They also assess the adequacy of the management structure, the development of human capital, and the relevance to end users, focusing on the impact of research and development on commercialization and national objectives Additionally, sustainability and participant contributions are key factors in the evaluation process.

Evaluation involves annual monitoring that emphasizes research direction and financial oversight, alongside mid-term panel assessments conducted at the halfway and two-thirds marks, culminating in a final evaluation that concentrates on outputs, outcomes, and impacts.

 CoEs may be hosted by a HEI that provides support through institutional integration, meeting its staffing and infrastructure needs, and supporting knowledge transfer and network activities

 CoEs can also be incorporated as a separate legal entity or as an unincorporated joint venture between partners (e.g industrial firms, industry associations, universities and government agencies)

 Private or public-sector members form the majority on governing boards and project selection committees

 An advisory committee overseeing CoE operations including appointments and evaluations

 Critical mass and economies of scale in promising research areas, allowing for planned, strategic, long-term research, and the sharing of personnel, equipment, databases etc

 International competitiveness and visibility e.g by an increase in global share of research outputs

 Grants and programmes offer support from pre-doctoral to postdoctoral levels, including doctoral support and mentoring

 Increased incidence of collaborative and interdisciplinary research

 Strategic capacity for developing and acting on new research opportunities

 Increase in private-sector investment in R&D and advanced technologies

 Better understanding in academic circles of the various conditions needed for industry innovation

 Increased international scientific collaboration, including global research and academic engagement in co-investment arrangements

 Increased domestic collaboration between scientists, technologists and institutions to ensure that benefits spill over to a wide array of firms, sectors and regions of the country

 Joint priority setting between academia and businesses, so that organisations can be launched more rapidly and relevant research initiated much earlier

 Long-term public-private sector collaboration, including links between researchers and firms, to address significant research challenges that meet business needs

 An internationally competitive research training environment, providing training in critical thinking, entrepreneurship skills and innovative research

 Postdoctoral support, with internship programmes, support for students to study abroad, joint ventures in student training, and with particular attention paid to racial and gender disparities

 Critical mass of research supervisory capacity and mentorship

 Qualifications which are relevant to the needs of business and industry, e.g through industry- oriented projects with clear timelines, milestones and the potential of “no/ go” decisions

 Fostering of graduate careers in non-academic settings, e.g by providing opportunities for research students to work with industry experts and to undertake R&D activities in industrial settings

 Improve industry R&D capacity, including among SMEs, and increasing receptivity to the results of R&D For example, improving SME staff skills may thereby reduce the costs and risks associated with R&D activities

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Strategic orientation

The primary focus of basic and strategic research within Centers of Excellence (CoE) is to enhance scientific capacity for generating new knowledge, emphasizing both scientific output and the institutional framework necessary for such production A key objective of these initiatives is to bolster "frontier fields of science" and develop "world-class" research capabilities Additional goals support this main ambition, including fostering connections among researchers across various disciplines and locations, linking the national science system to global research networks, and promoting scientific prioritization within the science ecosystem.

Strategic aims can enhance development capacity by fostering scientific renewal and establishing new fields of basic research aligned with the national science and higher education system Mobilizing dispersed research talent in targeted areas is essential for creating critical mass and synergies within the science system Additionally, stimulating international networks for training, quality control, and recruitment can bolster institutional capacity, enhance academic social capital, and nurture research talent A significant outcome of these efforts is the strengthening of institutional capacity to formulate and implement effective research policies.

Innovation and advanced technological development Centers of Excellence (CoEs) focus on stimulating industrial growth rather than pure scientific research Their goals include supporting application-oriented research, integrating complementary resources for industrial use, and facilitating knowledge transfer between researchers and industry A critical strategic aim is to create a critical mass that addresses industry-relevant problems, emphasizing collaboration among academia, policy, and industry Unlike basic science, the development of innovation capacity requires active engagement beyond the confines of academia.

The capacity building of this type of Center of Excellence (CoE) aims to equip established or emerging industries with essential knowledge and expertise for innovation and national growth by adapting the scientific foundation Similar to basic science CoEs, the advantages arise from achieving critical mass and enhancing research accessibility for industries, thereby facilitating technology transfer By fostering an environment that leverages public research and a science system responsive to industry challenges, it has tailored its skills and competencies to align with industry needs.

The social and economic development type of Center of Excellence (CoE) prioritizes generating competencies and skills to tackle national challenges, emphasizing specialization within the higher education system It aims to foster triple-helix and user-driven collaborations to effectively address socio-economic issues Unlike other CoE categories, the focus is on intangible outputs, with the ultimate goal of achieving diverse social and economic improvements, including enhanced development and capacity building.

The capacity development aspect is prominently demonstrated through the alignment of research with national goals, particularly in addressing policy and development challenges Centers of Excellence (CoEs) play a crucial role in enhancing skill sets in targeted areas, thereby fostering research-based education and improving overall higher education capacity By concentrating on skills development, CoEs create opportunities for a critical mass within the higher education system, ensuring a tailored response to local needs While this initiative is primarily academic, it aligns with broader strategic objectives, such as developing social capital and fostering network connections within triple-helix frameworks These frameworks emphasize enhancing competencies and skills for social problem-solving rather than solely focusing on academic research outputs.

Institutional supporting and operational mechanisms

The strategic objectives and effects of the CoE schemes vary significantly, making categorization beneficial; however, their institutional support and operational mechanisms are largely consistent, with only minor differences, such as evaluation methods Consequently, we will provide a summary of these mechanisms while highlighting some noticeable distinctions.

Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are typically established through a competitive funding process that includes multiple selection stages and funding durations ranging from 5 to 15 years, with host higher education institutions (HEIs) often providing up to 50% matching funds In socio-economic development CoEs, HEIs may be exempt from co-funding Selection is carried out by international academic committees for basic and strategic research CoEs, while innovation-focused CoEs are evaluated by mixed committees of practitioners and academics Key selection criteria include the quality of the program and investigators, potential for scientific or socio-economic impact, networking capabilities, national visibility, and alignment with national goals CoEs undergo annual financial and operational reviews, mid-term evaluations assessing outputs, and final evaluations measuring overall results and impacts, which can lead to adjustments in funding based on performance.

Centres of Excellence (CoEs) are generally allowed to organize independently, provided they maintain transparent decision-making, diversity, formal communication structures, and a connection between CoE leadership and the host institution's leadership While a unitary organization is often preferred, these conditions significantly differ from standard project funding This structure enhances institutional capacity building by enabling scholars to engage in academic management and leadership roles For research councils, the CoE format allows for more involved funding activities and the opportunity to innovate and test new funding mechanisms.

Impacts and capacity building

Capacity building is fundamentally linked to various impacts, particularly in enhancing national research capacity through the establishment of critical mass in specific scientific areas Key impacts include improved abilities to identify and pursue new research opportunities, as well as the development of research infrastructure Strengthening collaboration between researchers and public sectors or industries, both locally and internationally, is a recurring theme Additionally, professionalizing research practices and enhancing leadership skills are vital for capacity building in science, especially when funding larger research organizations rather than individual projects Furthermore, the transfer of research and development capacity across sectors plays a crucial role in stimulating the national science system and fostering socio-economic development in unforeseen ways.

Innovation and technological development Centers of Excellence (CoEs) prioritize knowledge creation by maximizing human resources and fostering collaboration between academia and businesses A key focus is on attracting complementary expertise to address specific innovation and commercialization challenges, which includes drawing international talent and facilitating global research networks Additionally, it encourages the exchange of industry professionals into academia and vice versa, through shared infrastructure and collaborative governance Education and training for industrial actors, along with research training within industry settings, are vital for skills transfer The most significant outcomes include the establishment of new research-based firms, retention of domestic companies, and attraction of investments, alongside enhancing the capacity for technology verification by engaging users when necessary.

Socio-economic development Centers of Excellence (CoEs) focus on enhancing research capacities by fostering critical mass in key areas, emphasizing improved research training, interdisciplinary collaboration, and increased private sector investment They promote international cooperation in education and long-term domestic collaboration, which accelerates problem-solving and strengthens sector relationships Central to these CoEs is the development of human capital through internship programs for young academics, mentorship, and skills transfer to industry, including adapting academic programs to meet industry needs The primary outputs are knowledge transfer, training workshops, and policy improvements, rather than new products, with a strong emphasis on outreach activities that benefit underrepresented groups.

This analysis is summarised in Table 2 below.

Conclusions

In Section 3 of this report, we proposed that Centers of Excellence (CoEs) could serve as a vital tool for capacity building by fostering human resource development, strengthening organizational capacity, and establishing institutional and legal frameworks in research and higher education Additionally, we argued that the integration of resources does not have to be a trade-off between scientific and social agendas; rather, it can effectively connect and enhance both domains, ultimately contributing to innovation and socio-economic development.

The study indicates that Centres of Excellence can effectively enhance capacities within the science and higher education institution (HEI) systems by focusing on human resource development rather than solely on publication-driven project funding Furthermore, these initiatives necessitate the professionalization of research organizations and funders, which could lead to a more cohesive research system that prioritizes strategic funding and systematic evaluations These elements are essential for fostering key research development capacities.

Kearney (2009) highlights the importance of international research contacts, expertise provision, and research training capacity, which are often overlooked as project funding goals The CoE approach effectively addresses critical challenges in national systems, such as resource dilution, the rapid expansion of higher education, and research fragmentation, by concentrating resources and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration The reviewed schemes indicate that achieving critical mass in research within select areas is feasible through the CoE model, demonstrating its strategic ambitions and positive impacts.

Table 2 Overview of CoE scheme types

Strategic orientation Institutional conditions Impacts and capacity building

- Support of “frontier fields of science”

- Internationally competitive (world class) research capabilities

- Connect researchers across fields and geographical locations

- Connect the science system to international research networks

- Support scientific prioritisation in the science system

- Application/funding approach involving competitive calls

- Two or three stage selection processes (with pre- proposals)

- 5 to 10 year funding, sometimes extending to 15

- Up to 50% matching funds provided by host HEI and/or partner organisations

Selection is carried out by academic committees, typically international, for basic and strategic research Centers of Excellence (CoEs), while innovation and development-oriented CoEs are evaluated by mixed committees comprising both practitioners and academics.

- Criteria involve programme quality, investigator quality, potential for scientific or socio-economic renewal, networking and partnerships, national academic visibility, contribution to national goals, and similar value dimensions

- Evaluations by annual reviews (financial/operational), mid-term evaluations focusing on outputs (e.g academic results or socio- economic activities) and operations, and final evaluations focusing on results and impacts

Transparent decision making structures, Display diversity

Formal communication structures Operative advisory and governing board and formal connection between CoE leadership and HEI/host

- Critical mass in areas of science

- Cooperation between researchers and public sector/industry

- Professionalization of the researcher and research organization

- Transfer of research and development capacity across sectors

- Stimulate innovation and technological/industrial development

- Support strategic and applications oriented research and expertise

- Bring together complementary resources for technical/ industrial application

- Bridge the worlds of researchers and users,

- Knowledge transfer from academe to industry

- Knowledge and competence (expertise) transfer

- Bringing sectors (academe, policy and industry) together

- Networking across academe and business sectors

- Complementary expertise with the potential to solve industry challenges

- Attracting international talent and enabling international research networks

- Industry talent to enter into academe and vice versa

- End user involvement in research

- Skills transfer through education and training of industrial actors

- Creation of new research based firms

- Making users available for technology verification when needed

- Social and economic improvements, e.g development and development capacity

- Academic knowledge utilisation for societal benefits

- Generating qualified competence and skills to address national challenges

- Focus and specialise competence in the higher education system

- Stimulate triple-helix and user-driven collaborations to meet socio-economic challenges leadership

Unitary organisation, i.e “under one roof” Social and economic development

- Increased interdisciplinary work, increased research investments by the private

- Long term inter-sectoral collaboration

- Increase the speed of social and economic problem solving

- Long-term relationships between sectors

- Capacity to development and renew of human capital

- Internship programs for young academics in business

- Mentorship capacity, and skills transfer to industry

- Adaptation of academic programs to industry needs

- Transfer knowledge and skill to underrepresented groups