Scientific solutions to global crises and challenges such as climate change, wars, political and economic instability, and hunger are more profound than ever. So how can universities ensure the continued development of knowledge creation in times of scarce resources in higher education?
Of course, there is no single answer to this complex question. In this GGI Commentary I will focus on Research-Teaching-Integration (RTI). I have three reasons for doing so. Firstly, if I were to summarize my interests and pedagogical practices throughout nearly 40 years in higher education in one statement, it would be ‘learning and knowledge creation for the common good’. Secondly, over the past 10 years, I have had the pleasure of contributing to the University of Copenhagen’s strategic initiatives within RTI. Partly, through a project including both research and practices (Damsholt et al. 2018), partly as member of the steering committee that allocated funding for RTI experiments across the university. The committee also developed a model for RTI, evaluated the experiments and authored a manual based on our findings and experiences. Thirdly, I have always strived to focus on our daily pedagogical practices and the development to meet challenges at all levels. While pedagogical practice alone cannot solve a war, we must start somewhere. It is the collective effort that, hopefully, will make a difference. Before outlining some potential benefits of practicing RTI in higher education, and the essential role of leadership is ensuring its success, I will briefly introduce the Copenhagen RTI-model.
When asked, What is Research-Teaching-Integration?, students often respond: It is when my teacher teaches us about their research. Teachers / researchers typically answer similarly: It is when I teach about my research (Damsholt & Sandberg 2018a & b). However, RTI encompasses much more. To reflect this complexity, the UCPH steering committee developed The Tree Model, which illustrates various ways to conceptualize and practice RTI. While not exhaustive or definitive, the Tree Model serves as a tool for inspiration and dialogue. It draws on existing models and frameworks, including Healey & Jenkins (2009), Angela Brew’s The Wheel (2013), and Chang’s conceptualization of RTI (Chang 2005). In Copenhagen, we emphasize the potential benefits for the research and researcher, not just the students, as many international models tend to focus solely on the student learning. (I won’t elaborate on these models here, but they can be used for inspiration. See for example the UCL’ s-models and resources: Resources and literature | Teaching & Learning - connected curriculum - UCL - London's Global University and Fung 2017). The Tree Model is not a final model, but a valuable starting point, acknowledging that RTI is a relational phenomenon.
Figure 1. the Tree Model. The RTI typology was developed based on Damsholt & Sandberg (2018) and The tree model was developed by the ‘Operational steering group for integration of research and teaching’ under the University of Copenhagen’s Academic Board on Education Strategy (KUUR). The members who have participated over the years and should, of course, be credited for their input are: Bente Stallknecht, Carsten Selch Jensen, Hanne Nexø Jensen, Helle Waagepetersen, Jan Alexis Nielsen, Kim Splittorff, Kristian Cedervall Lauta, Maria Johansson, Marie Larsen Ryberg, Marlene Ringgaard Kristensen, Mikael Bols, Olivia Boesen, Sebastian Horst, Tine Damsholt and Valdemar Stenberdt. Thanks to Project Manager Lotte Lyngaard Johansen and later Laura Wulff Thomassen for keeping track of everything. (Damsholt & Jensen 2024, 11).
The model’s base, i.e. the tree trunk, represents the principle that all university teaching is research-based. This is when the teacher presents research-based knowledge as such, when the teacher presents her/ his own research, and teaches students research methodology and engages students in ‘research-like processes’ (Damsholt & Jensen 2024: 11).
The green crown of the tree illustrates different basic ways of conducting RTI, emphasizing that ‘students can gradually be integrated into research activities and contribute with increasing independence to knowledge creation in different ways.’ (Damsholt & Jensen 2024: 11). The basic elements mentioned are students engaging with the teachers` research through feedback; students completing specified research tasks, such as data collection; students contributing independently to research through tasks defined by the researcher; students participating in research projects as co-creators of knowledge and finally, students defining their own research projects and receiving supervision (Damsholt & Jensen 2024; 11). It is important to stress that this is not an exhaustive list of RTI-combinations. Moreover, no one-size-fits-all approach exists. You always need to adjust your RTI activities to the number of students, the level taught, available resources (time and equipment), learning objectives, etc. RTI-activities can be integrated into a single lesson, a course, or an entire educational program.
A list of examples of RTI experiments at UCPH is available on the university’s homepage (Inspiration Catalogue – University of Copenhagen). A brief presentation of selected experiments challenges the traditional division between research conducted in the laboratory, in texts and in the field. However, the examples include both ‘traditional’ lab-based research and lab-inspired research conducted in non-traditional lab-fields settings etc.
A traditional lab setup typically involves participants in white coats and conducting experiments with microorganisms, basic materials etc. One example takes place at the Niels Bohr Institute in the Quantum Mechanics course, where even first-year physics students conduct experiments using IBM quantum computers. Through this, students gain insights into abstract physical connections, and their use of the computers contributes to ongoing research on quantum computing. The data analyses generated by students are also used in the teachers’ research.
Another example of a ‘laboratory’ comes from the Department of Sociology, where the ‘laboratory’ is the statistical software R, which is used to identify social networks. Students collect data, e.g. from the Danish biographical dictionary ‘Kraks Blå Bog’, encode the data, and investigate members of Denmark’s most powerful networks based on their own research questions. For instance, questions could be: Where are the women in powerful networks? Are there dominant family dynasties etc.? Several hypotheses were tested, and a substantial amount of student-generated data was used in the research project (Damsholt & Jensen 2024: 16).
The key is that students conduct experiments, i.e. actively participating in research processes, learn and understand more in depth what can be studied and how their analyses contribute to research outcomes.
Research in the text is common in disciplines such as theology, particularly in areas like church history or exegesis. In chemistry, using texts is less typical. However, chemistry students often struggle with mathematics and fail to see its relevance. In one experiment, ‘chemistry researchers demonstrated how mathematics is used in their research. Students were then asked to solve a problem using mathematics and write a short essay on the assignment’s theme. This helped students better understand the relevance of mathematics in chemistry and formulate insightful questions for the presenters. Meanwhile, the teacher gained new perspectives on their colleagues’ research, which inspired their own work (Damsholt & Jensen 2024: 16f).
Again, hands-on experience enhances student learning. In the chemistry case, the teacher gained research-related inspiration. In other experiments, students become co-researchers, and the teacher progresses as a researcher (see for example Afrapportering om eksperimenter med forskningsintegration, in Danish only, an English video is available here: Students working as researchers – University of Copenhagen).
Field-based research is traditionally associated with researchers spending extended periods among remote communities or archaeologists collecting data over months. However, this can be reimagined, for example, by having a group of students collect data over a short period. Among the UCPH experiments, one involved first-semester veterinarian students counting stray cats in Denmark. The data contributed to a surprising result published in an international journal (Nielsen et al., 2022). In another example, ‘Ethnology students across BA and MA levels conducted data collection in the form of ‘Ethnoraids’, an experimental fieldwork design. Instead of a single ethnographer spending a long time doing fieldwork, many people do fieldwork on the same day and in the same place. The students were instructed to conduct 2 to 15-minute interviews using images, props and prompts. Subsequently, master’s degree students participated in data processing and analysis, which again fed into the final publication.’ (Damsholt & Jensen 2024: 17 based on Damsholt & Sandberg 2018c).
In these cases, teachers received valuable data for their research, and students were acknowledged for their contributions while gaining insight into real research processes.
Although most experiments were successful, it is important to note:
So, what can RTI contribute to higher education? The focus on RTI indicates that teaching is not solely about student learning. It is both possible and relevant to focus on research development and contribution during teaching. Especially in times of limited resources and increased competition among researchers, RTI could be a contribution to research.
As mentioned, RTI takes time and requires institutional support. Leadership backing is essential, it should be an institutional priority, not an individual endeavor. At the University of Copenhagen, the rectorate has supported RTI for over a decade, both financially and strategically. From 2017-2023, RTI was one of four strategic focus areas (University of Copenhagen 2017). Furthermore, over the past ten years, the RTI-model (the ‘tree’) has become an optional part of the university’s quality assurance system, i.e., the research matrix. During regular evaluations of courses and degree programmes, the RTI model is used as a tool for dialogue. All stakeholders are encouraged to consider how research and teaching are integrated. As one head of studies put it: ‘The tree model provides food for thought.’ (Damsholt & Jensen 2024: 36). In spring 2025, the RTI model was highlighted positively by the Danish Accreditation Council in the report on UCPH’s accreditation (Afgoerelsesbrev_og_rapport_IA_KU_2025.pdf, p.38, in Danish).
The RTI model at Copenhagen University exemplifies the development of teaching excellence, specifically, integrating research into teaching. This process takes time and is more successful when leadership at all levels is involved. Encouragingly, it is good news that a new ERASMUS+ project focusing on Leadership and Institutionalisation of Teaching Excellence (LITE) has received two years of funding. This gives participating institutions the opportunity to explore how, for example, RTI can be developed and institutionalized in their specific contexts.
Brew, A. (2013). Understanding the scope of undergraduate research: A framework for curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Higher Education 66(5), s. 603-618. doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9624-x
Chang, H. (2005). Turning an undergraduate class into a professional research community. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 387-394. doi: 10.1080/13562510500122339.
Damsholt, T., & Jensen, H. N. (2024). Research-Teaching-Integration at UCPH: a Manual. Research-Teaching Integration at UCPH – a Manual
Damsholt, T., Jensen, H. N., & Rump, C. Ø. (red.) (2018). Videnskabelse på universitetet: Veje til integration af forskning og undervisning. (1 udg.) Frb. Samfundslitteratur. (in Danish: Knowledge Creation at the University: Paths to Integration of Research and Teaching).
Damsholt, T. & Sandberg, M. (2018a). ‘Det gør en kæmpe forskel for mig, at nogen skal bruge det jeg laver’ – studerendes motivationer og udfordringer ved integration af forskning og undervisning. In: Damsholt, T., Jensen, H. N., & Rump, C. Ø. (eds.). Videnskabelse på universitetet: Veje til integration af forskning og undervisning (pp. 31-56). Frb. Samfundslitteratur.
Damsholt, T. & Sandberg, M. (2018b). De frække spørgsmål, den gode investering eller noget, der passer ad helvedes til – underviseres perspektiver på forsknings-undervisnings-integration. In: Damsholt, T., Jensen, H. N., & Rump, C. Ø. (eds.). Videnskabelse på universitetet: Veje til integration af forskning og undervisning (pp. 59-93). Frb. Samfundslitteratur. (in Danish: Knowledge Creation at the University: Paths to Integration of Research and Teaching).
Damsholt, T. & Sandberg, M. (2018c). Af lyst eller nød – En etnologisk undersøgelse af integration mellem forskning og undervisning i praksis. Københavns Universitet. static-curis.ku.dk/ portal/ files/213594738/AF_LYST_ ELLER_N_D_ELEKTRONISK_ VERSION_2.pdf
Fung, D. (2017). Connected Curriculum for Higher Education. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1qnw8nf
Healey, M. & Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry. York: Higher Education Academy.
Nielsen, H.B., Jensen, H.A., Meilby, H., Nielsen, S.S. & Sandøe, P. (2022). Estimating the Population of Unowned Free-Ranging Domestic Cats in Denmark Using a Combination of Questionnaires and GPS Tracking. Animals 2022, 12(7), 920; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12070920
University of Copenhagen (2017). Talent og samarbejde – Strategi 2023. Copenhagen. University of Copenhagen.
