Finland

Purpose

In Finland, the Ministry of Education and Culture uses performance-based research funding system to allocate part of core funding annually to higher education institutions, including universities and universities of applied sciences. The universities’ financing model consists of summative funding formula based on indicators for educational and research performance, as well as universities’ strategies, national tasks, and duties as defined by bilateral performance agreements. The purpose of the financing models is to improve the quality, impact and productivity of the higher education institutions, while creating accountability and transparency regarding the use of public funds. A separate financing model, which is more focused on education and has a small R&D component, is used for allocating core funding to the universities of applied sciences.

For more information, see: https://okm.fi/en/steering-financing-and-agreements

Year of Introduction
2013

Census period
1 year

Governance agency(s)
The Ministry of Education and Culture

Most recent occurrence
2026

Purpose
Funding Allocation & Reputation Accountability

Unit of Assessment
The organisation as a whole

Focus of Assessment
Scholarly outputs
Competitive grants
Other: PhD degrees obtained

Governance

Finland’s Parliament decides annually on the amount of core funding allocated by the Ministry of Education and Culture to the universities and universities of applied sciences. Under the Universities Act of 2010, universities are required to provide the Ministry with the data necessary for the evaluation, development, statistics and other supervision and steering of education and research.The collection of data on education and research activities is coordinated by CSC – IT Center for Science Ltd., a company partly owned by the state of Finland and the Finnish higher education institutions. As part of this process, the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV), a public non-profit organisation representing the Finnish scientific and research community, produces the national Publication Forum (JUFO) list of publication channels. 

Operation of the exercise

Focus of the assessment

The Finnish performance-based research funding component focuses on scholarly outputs, international and national competitive grants, and doctoral degrees obtained.

Unit of assessment and scope

In the financing model, the unit of assessment is the whole institution and the funding is allocated as a single entity, the internal distribution of which is decided freely by the universities.

Methods

The research performance component of the universities’ funding model accounts for 37% of total funding and is based on three indicators: PhD degrees (9%), publication counts (14%), and international and national competitive grants (14%). The publication indicator is based on information integrated from local current research information systems into Research.fi service, intended to ensure independence and transparency of the data. The funding formula uses publication counts from three previous years differentiated based on publication type, national Publication Forum (JUFO) list of journals and book publishers, and open access of publications. While the publication indicator is quantitative, the JUFO rating of publication channels is based on qualitative expert-assessment. The indicator covers universities’ publication outputs across disciplines, publication types and languages, including publications targeted to scientific, professional and general audiences.

For more information (in Finnish), see: https://okm.fi/documents/1410845/4392480/YO_rahoitusmalli%20vuodesta%202025%20alkaen.pdf

History, reviews and evaluations

In Finland, the financing models for higher education institutions are set for four-year agreement periods by the Ministry in dialogue with universities and universities of applied sciences. The separate models for these two types of institutions are reviewed periodically by a dedicated working group appointed by the Ministry, with the rationale for proposed changes  provided in a report, and the draft of decree on the financing criteria made open for public consultation. Over the past decade, there have mainly been minor adjustments to the number of indicators and/or their weighing and relative share of the funding.   

The number of scientific publications was introduced to the financing model in 2007–2012 and over the years the share of funding based on publications has been increased considerably: 0.3% in 2007–2009, 1.7% in 2010–2012, 13% in 2013-2020, and 14% in 2021-2028.

The financing models have been both analysed and evaluated recently in three international reports. According to the expert who provided the information on Finnish performance-based research funding model, Janne Pölönen, ‘Overall, the three reports indicate that the  universities’ financing model in Finland is in international comparison strongly performance-oriented. According to critics, it incentivises institutions, through a high-stakes zero-sum-game, to prioritize uniformity over unique profiles. While the steering by results is considered to limit the institutional autonomy, it seems that from the university management’s perspective the Finnish performance-based system is valued for the predictability and transparency of funding allocation. It remains to be seen to what extent such practical considerations may outweigh, in the era of responsible research assessment movement, concerns about the use of quantitative and venue-based publication indicators’.

References:

Last updated: April 2026

Acknowledgement: Information provided by Janne Pölönen.

Purpose

In Finland, under the 2010 Universities Act, universities are required to evaluate their education, research, and artistic activities, conducted typically by means of an institutional Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) approximately every five to six years. In contrast to the summative Financing model of the universities, institutional RAEs are primarily formative evaluations aimed to support institutional learning, improvement and strategic planning. RAEs do not have direct effects on institutional core-funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture, however, universities may choose to use their results to inform internal distribution of resources. 

These assessments provide an opportunity for universities to enhance their reputation by demonstrating and showcasing the quality and impact of their activities to the personnel and stakeholders. While there is no national-level framework guiding institutional RAEs (and no one framework has become the de facto standard as with the Strategy Evaluation Protocol in the Netherlands) there has been knowledge exchange and mutual learning among universities in Finland.

Year of Introduction
2010

Census period
Usually 5–6 years, although universities decide the interval themselves

Governance agency(s)
Finnish universities

Most recent occurrence
2026

Purpose
Organisation Learning & Development

Unit of Assessment
Varies across RAE cycle – Organisation as such
Disciplines across organisations
Research groups

Focus of Assessment
Scholarly outputs
Scientific Impact
Societal Impact
Research Environment
Other

Governance

In Finland, some universities began conducting comprehensive institutional assessments as early as the 1990s. Since 2010, universities have been obliged under the Universities Act to “evaluate their education, research and artistic activities as well as the effectiveness thereof” and to “publish the results of the evaluations they have organised”. Although mandated by law, institutional RAEs are not centrally governed or coordinated processes and are therefore not understood in Finland as a unified national-level assessment framework (such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK or the Strategy Evaluation Protocol in the Netherlands). Nevertheless, while universities have full autonomy in deciding when and how they conduct and frame their institutional assessments, RAEs share common features regarding their focus, units of assessment, and methods. The Finn-ARMA Network (Finnish Association of Research Managers and Administrators) has a working group on research assessment that supports the exchange of knowledge and experiences related to ongoing and completed RAEs.


Operation of the exercise

As there is no strict regulation or common framework guiding institutional RAEs in Finland, each university designs and conducts its assessments independently. Universities are therefore free to determine the focus, units, and methods of assessment for each RAE campaign, which may vary from one RAE to the next within the same institution. Universities also determine the interval between assessments; however, in practice, RAEs have typically taken place every five to six years.

Traditionally, university RAEs have focused on the scientific quality and impact of research. However, over the past decade, it has become increasingly common to address the societal impact of research as well. For example, the University of Tampere’s 2014 RAE used the following assessment criteria: (1) profile, organisation, and volume of research; (2) quality of research; (3) scientific impact of research; (4) societal impact of research; (5) quality of the research environment; and (6) potential of the unit. The main criteria of the University of Helsinki Research Assessment (RAUH) 2025 are scientific quality, societal impact, and research environment, supported by self-assessment reports and a focus on interdisciplinary research.

Education is typically not a focus of institutional RAEs, as external audits of higher education institutions are conducted regularly by the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) in accordance with the European quality assurance standards. These audits evaluate the universities’ quality-management system and processes, including research, but there is stronger emphasis on strengthening high-quality education.

Depending on the university and the specific RAE campaign, the unit of assessment may range from the entire institution to research fields, administrative units, and self-defined research communities. RAEs do not, however, typically evaluate individual researchers.

The preferred method in almost all institutional RAEs has been expert-based peer evaluation. The work of expert panels is informed by bibliometric analyses and other relevant quantitative indicators, as well as, increasingly, self-assessment reports and impact narratives. Bibliometric analyses (often contracted externally) are typically based on Web of Science (WoS) and/or Scopus data. Since these databases do not cover books and national journals, analyses based on WoS or Scopus data have often been supplemented in assessments with publication analyses conducted by university libraries based on Current Research Information Systems (CRIS), complemented by the national Publication Forum (JUFO) classifications of journals and book publishers.

History, reviews and evaluations

According to the expert who provided the information on Institutional Research Assessment Exercises in Finland, Janne Pölönen: ‘Compared to the performance-based financing model of universities, the decentralized institutional RAE processes have as a whole received little systematic attention by the Ministry, the stakeholders or researchers. Their effects and effectiveness have not been comprehensively considered or evaluated, and as each RAE campaign is unique, universities typically do not include evaluation (if any) of the previous campaign in the current RAE reports. There are a few studies that have focused on certain aspects of the RAE, for example the use of bibliometrics and the societal impact’.

References:

Last updated: July 2026

Acknowledgement: Information provided by Janne Pölönen.

Finland

Number of Systems
2
Name of System(s)
Financing model of universities
Institutional Research Assessment Exercises
Back to map view

Subscribe on Substack

We publish timely essays, reflections and signals from across metascience, research policy and reform. Expect original thinking, reactions to live debates, and practical insights from people studying research.