NIPH Norwegian Institute of Public Health
Units included in the
evaluation of sociology
- NIPH Norwegian Institute of Public Health iv) Knowledge for the Health and Care Services Domain
Training, recruitment and academic positions 2014 2015 2016 No. of PhD graduated at the institution per year
Male/Female 1/- 1/- -/1
R&D expenditures and sources of funding (1000 NOK) The table below shows the total expenditures and sources of funding of the NIPH’s total portfolio of externally financed projects. The accounting system does not produce reports showing costs and funding for only social science research in particular.
Total per year 1 1 1
No. of positions announced / No. of qualified applicants per year
*The PhD candidates from 2014 and 2015 were employed at the National Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research at the time of their completion. The National Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research was
incorporated into the Norwegian Institute of Public Health on 1 January 2016.
Source: The Research Council of Norway, Self-assessment report for the institution, 16/12960
70
10.1 Sociology at the institutional level
NIPH Norwegian Institute of Public Health was founded in Oslo in 1929 as a public institute addressing public health issues. Since then, the institute has undergone numerous mergers with other institutions, and its mandate and organisation, as well as its staff and scientific profile, have expanded correspondingly. The current organisation was established in 2002 because of a major reorganisation of the Norwegian health administration. Today, the institute has offices in Oslo and Bergen. The 19 sociologists listed for the evaluation of sociology are located in Oslo.
Organisation, leadership and strategy
NIPH is an institute outside the academic system. It is organised directly under the Ministry of Health and Care Services and has about 1,000 employees. NIPH’s primary vision is ‘better health for all’ and it is the main national provider of information about the population’s health status and systematic reviews for the health sector. Research is, accordingly, mostly applied and utility-driven. For this evaluation, NIPH lists 19 researchers, i.e. 3% of all the researchers in the Sociology evaluation.
Sociology is far from the main discipline in NIPH, being only one of several social science disciplines involved in NIPH’s research activities. However, it was decided to only submit NIPH to the Sociology panel for this evaluation.
There was a major reorganisation in 2016, which means that this evaluation is not very well-timed for NIPH. Its mandate was changed and expanded to cover the entire health sector, and a few external centres and institutes were integrated into the organisation. NIPH is now responsible for 10 of the 18 national health registries. The sociology researchers at NIPH form two major groups. One comprises 12-15 employees from the former SIRUS institute– the Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, which was incorporated into NIPH in 2016. The other comprises a group of five demographers. In addition, sociological research is carried out on, e.g. air pollution.
In March 2017, NIPH was awarded an SFF - Centre of Excellence, and work in this connection started in autumn 2017. The name of the centre is the Centre for Fertility and Health, and two of the researchers in the sociology panel are heavily involved in the centre through their roles as Principal Investigators. The funding for the SFF will allow new researchers to be recruited and ensure a balanced budget, following a period of budget cuts and downsizing. The downsizing does not seem to have affected the group of sociologists at NIPH.
The organisational structure follows traditional bureaucratic models, with a director general, an executive director, a top executive group and thematic departments and units on several levels. The primary aim is to maintain and develop NIPH’s role as the main knowledge provider in relevant fields.
There is no general strategy for research, except for an aspiration to engage in research collaboration at all levels and ensure good quality, and, with respect to demography, to emphasise making use of the extensive availability of registry and census data. There is a strong emphasis on international collaboration.
Institutional follow-up of previous evaluations
NIPH has not previously participated in sociology evaluations, but has done well in evaluations of epidemiology, public health, psychology and more science-oriented disciplines, resulting in good scores. Most of the suggestions from these evaluations are not relevant to sociology, but have focused on expanding statistical skills and international participation in research.
71
Resources and infrastructure
NIPH has recently experienced budget cuts and pressure to reduce the number of employees. External funding from the RCN for (the whole of) NIPH has increased during the last three years. The new SFF Centre on Fertility and Health will generate extensive funding. External funding accounts for 90 per cent of R&D expenditure, and a big part of this consists of resources from the Ministry of Health and Care Services (core funding of research is not specified).
There are no specified priorities for research other than ‘good quality’ aimed at ‘better health for all’.
The integration of researchers from the former SIRUS and other centres put a strain on the budget, but this now seems to have been resolved.
Publication strategies are aimed at increasing publication with international, high-ranking publishers.
The overall rate of Level 2 publications is low, which is not surprising since NIPH’s main task is to produce nationally useful reports. The rate of international co-authorship is well above the national level for Sociology, however.
Research environment
NIPH is a large institute and sociological research forms a tiny part of its work. There are many sociological themes that could be developed in the fields where NIPH is active, but these themes would primarily profit from increased collaboration with university environments. NIPH’s mandate is not to be at the forefront of disciplinary research, but rather to produce (for the political system) applicable knowledge and knowledge-based registries. There is no lack of data, infrastructure or methodological competence, but the disciplinary weight is light. Methodological qualifications are acknowledged and emphasised in recruitments, and two senior experts – one on qualitative methods, one on quantitative methods – are employed in 20%-positions for methodological support. On the qualitative side, this has led to a number of activities such as workshops, seminars and lectures.
Sociology PhD students are most often enrolled in UiO’s PhD programme. Supervision is shared, with
‘main educational responsibility’ being taken by UiO and the research being incorporated in one of NIPH’s research teams. It might be fruitful to let UiO take greater responsibility for the PhD students’
development as regards sociological theory.
Research personnel
Mobility is highly encouraged within NIPH, and there is a promotion system for research positions.
Due to budget cuts, few recruitments have been made recently, and those that have are largely in connection with externally funded projects. Positions are advertised nationally and internationally.
Among the seven advertised permanent positions during the period 2014–2016, four were filled through internal mobility (SIRUS), while three positions were advertised nationally and external applicants were appointed. With the new SFF Centre, it is expected that more research positions will become available in the near future.
There is no formal teaching obligation for senior researchers at NIPH, but they are expected to attend to administrative tasks and write proposals for external research funding. In addition, NIPH senior researchers often supervise thesis work at different levels, act as opponents in PhD defences and give lectures. They are also expected to respond to requests from the political system, the public administration and media. Formally, working hours are equally divided between research and administrative duties. According to the self-assessment, most researchers spend about 75 per cent of their time on research, however. There is no system for sabbatical leave, but international collaboration and short-term exchanges are encouraged.
72
NIPH has not formally implemented the European Charter, but the main thematic areas are being addressed. NIPH employs researchers with a large variety of national backgrounds and it complies with government procedures regarding the recruitment of minority applicants, disabled applicants and gender balance.
Research production and scientific quality
NIPH indicates that it aims for 60% of scientific publications targeting the academic discipline and mostly international (50%), with a smaller share aimed at beneficiaries outside the academic community (35% and mostly national). The submitted sociological research is mostly limited to former SIRUS research and demographic research, which are well represented in the selected ten publications that accompanied the self-assessment. All selected publications are on Level 2. The SIRUS group brought a number of ongoing projects with it, mostly funded directly by the Ministry and other national sources. A tobacco research group is behind many publications (and four of the ten listed), but the only external funding reported refers to ‘Extrastiftelsen’ together with NIPH for one study. One study on air pollution has previously had funding from the EU’s 7th Framework Programme, now funded by NIPH.
Two demography projects have funding from the RCN, there has recently been EU funding for an ERC starting grant (2009–2014) and one of the demographers has a central role in an ongoing ERC Advanced Grant (2013–2018) located at the University of Oslo, in addition to the new SFF Centre on Fertility and Health.
Working conditions for staff facilitate research production. In a few sociology fields, NIPH researchers are recognised as significant collaborators by the international research community. The demography group presents publication statistics with very good numbers for Level 2 publications. NIPH cannot compete with universities when it comes to the full discipline of Sociology, but, in the specific fields of sociological research where NIPH sociologists are active, they are at the forefront.
Assessment of scientific quality: 4 - very good
Interplay between research and education
This is not relevant to NIPH, but it is stated in the self-assessment that senior researchers participate as supervisors for thesis work at different levels, act as opponents in PhD defences and give lectures at, e.g., universities.
Societal relevance and impact
One of the four prioritised themes in the Norwegian Government’s Long-term Plan for research and higher education is ‘Public sector renewal, better and more effective welfare, health and care services’
– a theme that is highly relevant for sociological research at NIPH. NIPH lists 39 projects related to this theme and another two relating to ‘climate, environment and clean energy’.
One impact case, ‘Adoption of tobacco harm reduction in Norwegian tobacco control policy’, is attached to the self-assessment. Tobacco researchers, formerly at SIRUS and now at NIPH, have for many years participated in the international tobacco debate and research. Numerous publications, national and international, by professors Lund and Vedoy with colleagues, have had an impact on international tobacco research as well as on national Norwegian policies.
Overall assessment
The sociological profile of NIPH is narrow when it comes to fields of research, but broad when it comes to methodology. The mandate for NIPH limits what can be done and what should be done; its aim is to produce applied research within the domain of public health. NIPH should therefore not be compared
73
to an academic sociological institute. The publications selected for the evaluation reflect the fields that are open to research on public health, and they all meet a high quality standard. All ten submitted publications are in Level 2 journals. About half are published in Addiction, which is a major international journal, but not much read by sociologists. Other articles are in American Sociology of Health and Illness and European Journal of Epidemiology, which are mainstream, highly regarded journals. The best of its publishing is of a high standard.
Feedback
At NIPH, Sociology is just one part of research activities, mainly comprising demography and addiction-related research. Both these research fields at NIPH are successful, with many high-level publications, as reflected in the selected publications. NIPH has been subjected to recent budget cuts and pressure to downsize, but at present the budget is balanced and the future of Sociology at NIPH looks bright, with the start-up of the SFF Centre of Excellence. One risk that the panel sees is the dependence on ministry funding for, e.g., the former SIRUS group. NIPH emphasises and encourages international collaboration and applications, as well putting extensive effort into RCN applications. The panel agrees that, in the long run, these efforts will be of great importance to the academic independence of the NIPH sociologists.
74