In 2013, the European Union unveiled its new 'Composite Indicator for Scientific and Technological Research Excellence', marking a turning point in how excellence is understood and used in European policy. This is not an isolated occurrence; policy-based interest in excellence is growing all over the world. The heightened focus on excellence and in particular, attempts to define it through quantitative indicators can have important implications for research policy and for the conduct of research itself. This paper examines how the European Union's understanding of excellence has evolved in recent years, from the presentation of the Lisbon strategy in 2000 to the current Europe 2020 strategy. We find a distinct shift in the understanding of excellence and how success in the knowledge-based economy should be achieved: in the early period, excellence is a fuzzy concept, intrinsically embedded in research and researchers and revealed by peer review. In the later period, excellence is more sharply defined and connected with a particular sort of knowledge, that which produces breakthroughs; the result is that policymakers have turned their focus towards directly steering and controlling what is increasingly considered to be the key element for success in the knowledge-based economy. This change is evidenced by the 'Composite Indicator for Scientific and Technological Research Excellence', its rationale and its components, and also provides an entry point into viewing the implications of what happens to excellence when we start to measure it this way. Acknowledgement Financial support from Aarhus University's Senior Management Strategic Funds for the project 'Contextualizing and Measuring Research Performance' (CoRe) is gratefully acknowledged. The authors would also like to thank Emil Bargmann Madsen for practical help with table 1 and 2 and different coding tasks and two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments.

This chapter provides an alternative conception of universities and the higher education systems in which they operate in an attempt to comprehend the ways in which such institutions and systems adapt and maintain themselves over time. Conceptually, it builds on complex systems theory, most notably critical insights from the study of complexity. We base our empirical analysis on developments across the European continent in the light of recent efforts to modernize university systems in the context of rising competition and pressures towards vertical and horizontal differentiation. We contrast two models of the universitystrategic vs. resilient and critically reflect on the implications their differences have for the development of systems and universities and future research work in the area.

Resilience has attracted a multitude of scholars from diverse backgrounds and disciplines as it is a desired feature for responding to the adversities that modern societal systems face, not least the Covid-19 pandemic. Existing research displays little convergence on the definition of the concept making a robust theoretical framework and empirical understanding of resilience highly desirable. The aim of this chapter is to provide a more holistic understanding of the complex phenomenon of resilience from a multi-sectorial, cross-national and multidisciplinary perspective by proposing an original approach into the state of the art that might enhance future research. This chapter identifies three organizing principles for a framework of resilience. First, resilience embeds both stability and change which are both required elements. Second, adversities and their novelty profile can be mapped onto a typology of absorptive, adaptive and transformative resilience. Third, resilience has a temporal dimension that can be articulated in regard to forecasting, mechanisms and outcomes. The chapters of this edited book are positioned and connected by applying these three principles, in order to both enable theory testing and theory development throughout the volume and provide key empirical insights useful for societies, organizations and individuals.

No abstract