1 Introduction

2021 marked the ten-year jubilee for the Norwegian Centres for Excellence in Education (CEE). The CEE scheme is one of few active long-term funding schemes for quality enhancement in higher education. In Norway there are currently twelve centres distributed among disciplines ranging from biology, maritime education, medicine, and musicianship.

The scheme is managed by the Norwegian Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (2022, p. 2) and aims to:

1. –stimulate universities and university colleges to establish and develop academic communities that offer excellent [research and development]-based education,
2. –contribute to knowledge-based analysis and development of teaching and learning, that underpins quality enhancement and innovation capable of making significant impact,
3. –contribute to sector-wide development and dissemination of knowledge and excellent educational practices,
4. –stimulate stronger interaction between higher education and relevant working life and wider society.

The aims, theories and methodologies within any given centre are developed in relation to the call for proposals for the CEE scheme. Within the scope of the call for proposals, we will show how CEE works to change higher education. Our research question is as follows: How do the Norwegian Centres for Excellence work to develop teaching and learning in higher education?

By directing our research towards how, we narrow our focus towards what activities the centres are initiating to achieve the scheme’s goals of developing higher education. Used here, activities should not be confused with actor-network theory or similar the activities encompass initiatives that the centres have taken toward reaching a more or less defined goal. Further, for the purpose of this chapter, we use initiative to describe the individual activities of the centre. This is purposely done to clearly separate the individual activities from the main activity areas suggested in our findings.

2 Background

Activities for change within individual centres have been researched in various ways. Holen et al. (2020) have highlighted student engagement, and its prevalence and diversity within the centre structures. There are also some research on specific projects within individual centres that depict concerted efforts to strengthen work place skills and generic skills such as critical thinking and independent analysis among students (e.g., Brøske & Saetre, 2017; Jeno et al., 2018; Nerland & Prøitz, 2018). Further, there have been some comparative research on the aims and functions of excellence in education schemes that highlights the need for clear theories of change and for centres to develop theories to underlie their aims (Ashwin, 2021). Additionally, a write up in the wake of the interim evaluations of three centres in 2017, found particular characteristics of a successful centres for excellence: they take risks, enhance processes and nurture collaboration and partnerships to achieve aims (Helseth et al., 2019).

Two external evaluations of the CEE scheme have been commissioned by the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education. Carlsten and Vabø (2015) found that the scheme works well in changing cultures in higher education and dispositions toward teaching and learning among teaching staff. Specifically, by raising the status of teaching as more equal in value to research for career advancement. Kottmann, van der Meulen, and Westerheijden (2020) found that the CEE scheme overall works well in achieving its aims to develop quality in higher education by strengthening learning and teaching practices. Kottmann et al. also suggest that the scheme should more clearly articulate measures by which change is expected to be achieved and that centres in turn should disseminate even further across higher education institutions, particularly among those who are potential willing adopters of new teaching and learning practices.

To investigate beyond these contributions, we present a mapping of the practices inside the centres themselves. Additionally, by assembling an overview of the ways in which the centres work to change higher education we address the challenges outlined by Kottman et al. and Ashwin regarding the ways in which the centres are expected to achieve the aims of the CEE scheme.

There is a need for more knowledge about how academic communities, selected through a highly competitive process, elect to work to achieve their aims to increase quality. In 2022, 28 academic communities applied to the scheme to become a centre for excellence in education. The Directorate for Higher Education and Skills will fund three of these applicants. We believe that our mapping might help higher education communities choose strategies and initiatives based on practices currently employed by centres to develop teaching and learning in Norway.

3 Approach and Analysis

In this study we performed a thematic mapping of reported initiatives in the centres. We did not map assumptions that underlie these initiatives (e.g., theory of change). The centres report annually on accomplishments, results and initiatives related to the specific aim and vision that the centre is working to achieve. In the reports the centres are asked to address the following: (1) results compared to their application and centre plan, (2) dissemination of knowledge and practices. The centres are free to structure their report to address these questions. The annual report usually take the form of a brochure of 8–12 pages that presents key information with figures and illustrations (e.g., CEMPE, 2020). The centres also use the reports to communicate their work to stakeholders and other interested parties. The materials that we analyse are from the calendar year 2020 and were submitted to the Directorate of Higher Education and Skills in March 2021.

We implemented a thematic selection (see e.g., Jackson & Mazzei, 2018) of initiatives derived from the approaches the centres have reported. The available material was continuously examined in relation to available models for change in teaching and learning which resulted in initiatives being selected in several phases.

In the first phase we read the annual reports with Helseth et al.’s (2019) suggestions for successful centres in mind. We found that all centres aim to contribute to: (1) knowledge building, (2) providing excellence in education practices, (3) dissemination and (4) working life/societal relevance. The findings align with the aims for the CEE scheme, thus these worked as an initial grouping of activities.

However, Helseth et al.’s suggestions focus on overall successful strategies in the centres and not specific practices associated with teaching and learning. The process of mapping the initiatives of the centres made us aware of how many of the centres’ initiatives had impact in several areas. For instance, establishment of work placement initiatives include:

1. –Knowledge building, through analysis of existing research and former experiences, and research of concurrent efforts.
2. –Providing excellence in education, though changing educational practices using elements that have proved to have high quality (in e.g., assessment/supervision etc).
3. –Dissemination, both establishing partnerships, co-developing courses with several other institutions and disseminating experiences and/or findings from the course establishment.
4. –Working life/societal relevance through involvement of relevant partners for collaboration.

In phase two of our analysis, we amended our approach by selecting listed initiatives along their constituent participants, whether these were teachers, students, administrators, institutional leadership, or students. Finally, we assembled our results through thematic selection to map the overarching activity areas to displays the ways in which centres work. The emerging selections of themes derived from our reading of sociocultural learning, practices of knowledge and identity changes among participants in higher education (e.g., Gherardi, 2016; Kennedy, 2015; Trowler, 2008). When we amended our mapping in phase two of our analysis, by implementing the categories that the centres themselves highlight, knowledge building, changing identities and partnerships/collaborations emerged as principal activities enacted by centres to achieve change.

4 Findings

Our research question was How do the Norwegian Centres for Excellence work to develop teaching and learning in higher education? Through mapping and thematic selection, we suggest three main areas of activities that describe how the centres work: Knowledge building, role development, and partnerships/collaborations. The new areas depict overarching activities and clearly delineates important efforts in the centres based on the material. They also align with well investigated practices for change in higher education (Kezar & Holcombe, 2021).

5 Summary of Findings

In Table 4.1, we summarize our key findings by supplying various initiatives involved in each category. We have also included intended outcomes/aims where these are clearly discernible in the reports and included participants. Often, the aims of the initiative are not clearly stated, or the initiation of the activities are a goal in and of themselves or are components of the broader goal of the centre. The examples are generic to avoid identification among the centres, but it is clear in the examples how teachers are key participants in the initiatives.

6 Reflections

Our mapping suggests overall activity areas that contribute to developing higher education and should be developed further as we assemble more data from future annual reports from the centres. It is noteworthy that our efforts to map the initiatives in the centres derived several important findings in itself: both the overlapping nature of initiatives and how interrelated the initiatives are in changing higher education. Our findings seem to underlie why sociocultural approaches to analyse change in higher education is prevalent (e.g., Englund et al., 2018; Mascolo, 2009).

Analyses of the centres’ practices within their contexts remain vital to precisely understand and in turn report on, individual initiatives. However, an overall understanding of the centres’ work can assist development of teaching practices and assist in finding common areas of importance for development in higher education. That is, these analyses of centres’ initiatives are on a quite broad level, wherein individual centres’ context invariably become difficult to analyse (see e.g., Hodkinson et al., 2008).

That we found knowledge building to be a distinct activity aligns with Kezar and Holcombe’s (2021) findings about theories of change. For instance, Kezar and Holcombe find that organizational learning is among the prominent assumptions in change efforts in higher education. The underlying assumption in organizational learning includes changing approaches to knowledge and the enactment of knowledge in practices, which several of the centres’ initiatives contributes to.

Although we have not explored theoretical assumptions employed by the centres in relation to the initiatives, or considered it in the grouping of activity areas, interesting questions arise as we reflect on our findings. It is commonly argued that a clear model is needed to say something about how and why a change is likely to occur (Kezar & Holcombe, 2021; Roxå & Mårtensson, 2017), however our analysis shows that there are invariably multiple causalities and overlapping outcomes in activities.

The work of the centres in the CEE scheme can be understood as exploratory or continuous as it evolves over time, as they work towards reaching their visions while also contributing to the aims of the scheme itself. On the one hand, a clear model for change can work both to direct activities away from where they are most fruitful and report impacts that are not the most significant. Particularly, as our findings suggest, the various initiatives are integrated and have multiple impacts that are not conceptualized within a single model. On the other hand, it is necessary to develop and work towards clear aims, that are predominantly informed by available literature and models (Reinholz & Andrews, 2020). Also, activities for developing higher education require some level of planning and strategies for successful implementation. Thus, our suggestion is that theories of change is a useful tool, however the centres’ work should not be limited to a singular assumption provided that their work expands naturally.

Our findings also contribute to ongoing debates about the prevalence of the term excellence in higher education development, which has been argued to be an unclear term used to reward innovation and new ideas in higher education (e.g., Moore et al., 2017). Our findings underline the need to further delineate terms such as “excellence” and enacted practices as a method to develop higher education, even though much of the criticism toward funding schemes has been directed toward research funding specifically (Gross & Bergstrom, 2019). Our findings highlight the interrelated nature of activities, and thereby their planning and reporting/evaluation of impact. When it comes to education funding efforts, it is important that centres’ plan first, and then the activities are rewarded legitimately through transparent practices. It is important that reporting of activities is broad enough so that valuable societal impacts of activities can be accurately evaluated and disseminated. Further research may be needed to delineate the differences between research- and education-oriented funding schemes and potential pitfalls.

Our findings also point to the potential differences between research-driven and education driven funding schemes. In education-driven projects there are a wide variety of activities that contribute to the development of higher education. This particularity in education development makes it challenging to have a comprehensive and unified model of quality and we find that the directed activities to develop higher education has a wide range, and potential impacts across many parameters ranging from individual classrooms to national culture and policies. This further relates to the analysis required when considering concepts such as excellence, as a unified definition does not exist (Civera et al., 2020). In summary, we find that the potential pitfalls for educational funding schemes require different conceptualizations than in research, and careful considerations as to where parallels can be drawn across different funding schemes.

7 Further Development of Higher Education

Based on our findings among the centres in CEE scheme we highlight how academic communities can initiate development efforts. The activity areas found in our mapping are among several potential strategies for communities to employ when assessing potential initiatives.

Knowledge is a key component in developing higher education. The initiatives of the centres include critical examination, analysis and reflection of existing practices. The centres’ work includes implementing and developing teaching and learning practices alongside educational research. Successful centres seem to be able to both develop practices and knowledge and combine these processes.

Challenging and developing the role of the different participants are a second important component. This includes student involvement, as all of the centres report of activities initiated and coordinated by students inside an academic community. These initiatives are interrelated with a change of students’ conceptualization of their role in quality enhancement. Further, activities that develop participants’ roles include conflict, failures and other well-known processes within change for quality in higher education (see e.g., Mangione & Norton, 2020).

Although all activities are interrelated, the initiatives we denote as partnerships and collaboration in particular support the preceding activities. We denote partnerships and collaboration as separate activity areas as they seem to achieve separate goals among the centres. Development efforts are substantially strengthened through impulses, inspiration and access to new resources, ways of thinking and practices among varied stakeholders. How the stakeholders contribute can vary substantially, either through access to new groups, competency or policies. One important stakeholder in partnerships/collaborations are local authorities/schools and workplaces. These collaborations/partnerships provide crucial input alongside various actors in higher education to develop teaching and learning processes.

When considering various stakeholders, it is worth highlighting that the centres are in a position to explore and develop activity areas through external and internal resource allocation. The activity areas that we have explored are dependent on prioritizations among relevant actors. These priorities are dependent on leadership and willingness across changing leaderships to prioritize long lasting development processes (Kim & Maloney, 2021). To run activities, centres require time and freedom to act, which necessitates funding both through government and industry backing. The examples denoted in our findings include close collaboration between industry and higher education institutions, for whom quality in higher education is highly relevant. Quality enhancement in higher education through innovation can help mobilize internal and external funding to achieve reciprocal aims. It requires mutual understanding of challenges and opportunities, and academic communities must display how innovations contribute to aims of higher education.

The three activity areas, knowledge building, role development and partnership, are crucial for higher education and for initiatives to develop quality also outside of the CEE scheme. Additional work on dissemination, partnerships and workplace collaborations will be useful for furthering quality enhancement in higher education in general.

8 Limitations

As employees of the Norwegian Directorate of Higher Education and Skills that administrates the CEE scheme, we have an interest in the scheme’s success. To avoid a conflict of interest, our aim for this chapter was not related to the impact of the centres themselves and as such does not measure the success of the scheme. By managing the CEE scheme, we are closely appraised of the inner workings of the centres, and we are therefore well positioned to analyse the work and suggest activity areas. As administrators of the scheme, we are also repeatedly invited by the academic communities to contribute our findings and thoughts regarding the development of the centre scheme to the scholarly debate of how to develop higher education.