Ensuring stable financial resources for faculty is crucial to maintaining high-quality research, attracting top talent, and fostering a thriving academic environment. However, in Sweden—particularly at technical universities—faculty funding is heavily dependent on external grants. This situation creates challenges in maintaining stability and continuity in research efforts. How can we structure faculty research funding to ensure both stability and efficiency?

At Swedish  universities, faculty funding comes from two primary internal revenue streams:

• Educational Revenues (GRU): Linked to student enrollment and distributed based on teaching assignments. These funds can only be used for teaching-related activities.
• Internal Research Revenues (FoFU): Supports faculty research activities, including Ph.D. advising and research time.

GRU and FoFU are separate and cannot be merged into a single budget. Unlike educational revenues, which are relatively predictable, research funding is more volatile, as much of our infrastructure, Ph.D. students, and short-term researchers rely on external research grants. Given this reality, the key question remains:

How should we allocate faculty research funding to ensure stability while maintaining academic excellence?

Stable research funding per faculty member is essential for:

– Sustaining high research quality
– Attracting and retaining top faculty talent
– Enabling long-term research planning and doctoral education

One of the key challenges in academia is determining the appropriate faculty volume—that is, the number of faculty members needed to sustain both teaching and research at a high level. Faculty volume directly impacts the distribution of internal research funding (FoFU), making it a critical factor in long-term academic planning.

At the School of Engineering Sciences (SCI) at KTH, we believe that research funding should not be allocated arbitrarily or based solely on historical structures. Instead, it should be closely tied to faculty assignments (uppdrag) to ensure fairness, sustainability, and strategic alignment with the university’s mission.

But what does this mean in practice?

• Avoiding Fragmentation of Resources – If faculty volume expands without a proportional increase in funding, internal research resources (FoFU) risk being spread too thin. This could weaken research quality and limit support for Ph.D. students.
• Ensuring Fair and Transparent Allocation – A model based on assignments ensures that funding is linked to faculty contributions, both in terms of teaching and external research engagement.
• Supporting Faculty Career Development – By tying funding to faculty responsibilities, we create an environment where all can plan their careers with greater financial predictability.

At SCI, we focus on two key indicators when aligning research funding with faculty assignments:

Teaching Volume: Faculty members contribute significantly to education, and their teaching load should be factored into their research funding allocation.

External Research Funding: Since external grants form a major part of research financing, the ability to secure such funding is a vital faculty responsibility.

We believe that by using faculty assignments as a guiding principle, we create a balanced approach that supports both stability and growth in research activities.

The challenge lies in striking the right balance between faculty size and available funding. A stable baseline of internal research funding per faculty member is essential to sustain high-impact research and long-term academic success. At the same time, the system must be flexible to accommodate growth in externally funded research activities.

Moving forward, we need a structured approach to link faculty assignments to faculty volume. By reinforcing stable research resources while considering external funding realities, we can foster an academic environment that promotes both innovation and sustainability.

For the faculty at SCI, a detailed description of the economic distribution of funds as well as a comprehensive reform agenda for 2025 can be found at SCI-skolans konkretisering av KTH:s verksamhetsplan 2025

International collaboration has long been a cornerstone of academic and educational progress. Engaging across borders enables researchers and educators to exchange ideas, embrace diverse perspectives, and address global challenges in ways that no single institution or country could achieve alone. This openness enriches not only research but also the quality of teaching, preparing students to thrive in an interconnected world.

However, as geopolitical tensions rise, there is a growing tendency toward self-limitation and inward focus, with some countries,  institutions and governments reevaluating their priorities. In certain cases, this has even led to pauses or reductions in initiatives such as Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) programs, often justified by financial constraints or shifts in focus toward national or regional interests. These trends underscore the importance of reaffirming the values of openness and inclusion, even in challenging times.

At the same time, universities must navigate international sanctions and regulations responsibly, finding ways to sustain collaboration without compromising ethical or legal standards. This is a delicate balance, as these restrictions often challenge the very openness and equity that define academic pursuits.

Despite these obstacles, academia must remain a platform for dialogue, shared learning, and progress. This means not only fostering global research partnerships but also ensuring that teaching and mentoring reflect inclusivity and prepare students to engage with a diverse and interconnected world.

As we move forward, let us commit to a balanced approach: one that acknowledges the complexities of the current geopolitical and institutional climate while continuing to advocate for international partnerships and inclusive values.

As we approach 2025, the new research and innovation bill presents both promising opportunities and notable challenges for Swedish universities. Central to the bill are initiatives to establish new Strategic Research Areas (SFOs), addressing societal and technological challenges in fields such as quantum technology, life sciences, and materials science. These align closely with the strengths of SCI School, positioning KTH to play a pivotal role in advancing these fields. However, success will require strategic preparation to secure funding and build collaborative, high-impact research environments.

The bill emphasizes the critical role of free research as the foundation of scientific progress, with significant investments, including 450 million SEK for pioneering research starting in 2026 and 300 million SEK for Excellence Centers. These initiatives align with SCI’s commitment to foundational and theoretical research. However, limited increases in direct university funding raise concerns about long-term stability and infrastructure support, necessitating a careful balance between targeted initiatives and advocating for core funding.

Strategic recruitment offers another key opportunity, with 245 million SEK annually by 2028 dedicated by VR to tenure-track assistant professorships. This provides a pathway for SCI School to attract exceptional early-career researchers, though it demands transparent and strategic alignment to strengthen our research capabilities effectively.

Energy research receives notable support, with substantial funding allocated through the Energy Research Bill, particularly for nuclear energy. SCI School’s expertise in nuclear safety and innovation places it at the forefront of this critical field. Similarly, excellence clusters focusing on quantum technology, AI, and advanced energy systems—supported by funding of up to 40 million SEK annually—represent transformative opportunities for SCI. Quantum technology funding alone will grow to 100 million SEK by 2028. SCI School is well-positioned to contribute significantly to Sweden’s national quantum strategy, but achieving this will require dedicated efforts to secure funding and strengthen our leadership in this rapidly advancing field.

Additional investments, such as support for NORDITA, strengthen Sweden’s position as a global leader in theoretical physics, enhancing SCI’s impact in international collaboration and cutting-edge research.

Preparing for the Challenges Ahead

• To fully capitalize on these opportunities, SCI School must focus on several key priorities:
• Preparing competitive applications for new SFOs and targeted funding calls.
• Aligning recruitment efforts with long-term strategic goals while ensuring transparency and fairness.
• Strengthening collaborations with NORDITA, SciLifeLab, and industry partners to enhance impact.
• Advocating for increased direct funding to ensure stable and flexible support for core operations.

While the limited increase in direct university funding remains a concern, proactive and coordinated efforts will be essential to maintaining excellence and securing growth in this dynamic environment.

As we look ahead to 2025, SCI School must approach these opportunities with careful planning, collaborative efforts, and strategic vision to advance our research and innovation agenda. Addressing these challenges will require a coordinated and thoughtful approach to ensure sustainable growth and academic excellence.

Wishing everyone a productive and inspiring start to the new year.

The SCI faculty plays a pivotal role in KTH’s mission, contributing 22.5% of the university’s GRU funding and producing approximately 3,300 full-time student equivalents (HST), corresponding to around 18 HST per faculty member. Additionally, the faculty supports internal academic service equivalent to 15 full-time positions, shared among approximately 70 faculty members.

To ensure a fair and transparent distribution of responsibilities, we have developed a structured framework that is based on our core responsibilities—Education and Research—while also taking into account Academic Service. This framework formalizes the approach already largely followed at SCI, reflecting shared practices that support the collaborative spirit of our academic community. Education includes activities such as undergraduate teaching (including supervision), graduate education (excluding PhD supervision), professional development, and other KTH-related teaching initiatives. Research encompasses areas such as independent research, PhD supervision, research leadership, and external collaboration. Academic Service involves roles such as leadership in education (e.g., GA, PA, directors of studies), departmental leadership (e.g., head of department, deputy head, division head), school-level leadership (including faculty board roles), and KTH central assignments.

To maintain alignment with the school’s strategic goals, SCI has introduced proportional guidelines for balancing responsibilities across faculty positions. These guidelines are summarized in the table below:

Download the guidelines: En uppdragsbeskrivning för fakulteten vid skolan för
teknikvetenskap (SCI)

These guidelines aim to ensure a sustainable and transparent allocation of tasks across different roles. Importantly, the distribution is not directly tied to financial allocations, and exceptions may be addressed on a case-by-case basis through discussions with the Head of Department, who holds the ultimate responsibility for the distribution of faculty responsibility.

An important part of this framework is that these allocations and expectations will be discussed annually during individual development meetings (medarbetarsamtal). This process ensures that responsibilities are regularly reviewed and adjusted to align with both individual aspirations and institutional goals.

By embracing these shared principles and working together, we can continue to foster a thriving academic environment that supports both individual growth and collective success, ensuring that SCI remains a cornerstone of excellence at KTH.

As dean, I’m delighted to share news of our latest faculty promotions. This year, we’re especially thrilled to announce that out of nine new full professors, five are women, alongside one new female associate professor. These promotions are a testament to the exceptional talent and dedication across our faculty, reflecting our commitment to an environment where everyone can thrive and reach their full potential.

This progress aligns with our broader goal of fostering career advancement that is both inclusive and based on the highest standards in teaching, research, and service. 

In addition to celebrating these achievements, I’d like to introduce the newly published report on a proposed renewed career system. This report outlines potential pathways to create a more stable and supportive working environment for all faculty members. Over the coming months, we will engage in discussions around these recommendations, gathering input from all stakeholders. Our shared goal is to establish a career structure that provides clear, attainable milestones and fosters both professional growth and well-being. It is essential that our approach to career advancement and international recruitment is built on a well-defined framework, with transparent standards and a stable, supportive work environment.

At the school level, we will soon provide details on a renewed financial system that reflects a clearer faculty profile. This topic, among others, can be discussed at the December school breakfast meeting and other relevant forums.

I encourage everyone to participate in these upcoming conversations, sharing your perspectives and ideas. Together, we can shape a career system that not only supports academic excellence but also builds a thriving, inclusive academic community.