Strategic dependence on external funding in Finnish higher education

Abstract Universities are facing increasing external pressures to compete for external funding and to develop mixed economies comprising both state budget funding and external sources. This study aims to provide empirical and theoretical insights by utilising the Resource Dependence Theory and the Ecology of Games Metaphor to examine how Finnish universities articulate their goals for external funding in their institutional strategies. The findings indicate that universities’ central strategic goals and interests in this specific domain of funding align with their aspirations for top-tier research university status and how to advance it. Rather than choosing between different funding streams, universities are adapting to the conditions of their funding environments. The strategies also reveal the presence of contradictory goals, where potential positive externalities serve as justifications for these contradictions. The strategies do not necessarily reveal unique or innovative choices made by the universities, but rather express their future institutional image as being more driven by external funding and research. These strategic goals can be seen as responses to critical dependence on academics and academic research, and as heuristic tools of the university management arena in navigating uncertain and dynamic university environments.


Introduction
A large body of higher education examines policies that consistently highlight the significance and need for external funding.In today's academic landscape, the scientific reputation and prestige of universities are increasingly established through their participation in competitive external research funding schemes and research networks (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010;Brankovic, 2018;Frølich et al., 2017;Hicks, 2012;Muscio et al., 2013;Musselin, 2018;Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016).The availability of and access to external research funding has become strategically critical for universities (Hicks, 2012;Parker, 2013;Sharrock, 2012;Stachowiak-Kudla & Kudla, 2017;Young et al., 2017).In these contexts, performing well using governmental core funding does not contribute to building an ideal reputation and prestige from which, for example, universities can communicate to potential new external research partners.
The pursuit of external funding opportunities and the preparation of funding applications require a significant amount of time and human resources, thereby influencing how research is understood and conducted.The impact of external funding on science and universities has been extensively discussed in the literature (e.g., Bolli et al., 2016;Chubb & Watermeyer, 2017;Franssen et al., 2018;Lillis & Lynch, 2014;Musselin, 2018;Young et al., 2017).In addition to various other actors, higher education institutions themselves are now taking proactive measures by initiating strategies and policies to increase external funding in order to enhance institutional competitiveness (Musselin, 2018;Parker, 2013;Pucciarelli & Kaplan, 2016;Stachowiak-Kudla & Kudla, 2017;Teixeira & Koryakina, 2013).Furthermore, universities are driven to compete for funding and prestige due to a combination of global pressures and policies, national policies, and funding incentives (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010;Franssen et al., 2018;Gunn & Mintrom, 2016;Hicks, 2012;Musselin, 2018).
Empirical research in the field of higher-education funding has primarily focused on performance-based funding and its implications for both institutions and individual academics (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010, Cattaneo et al, 2016;Hicks, 2012;Rabovsky, 2014;Shin, 2010).In response to these emerging pressures for financial diversification, as well as external and internal factors, universities are increasingly expected to adopt management practices akin to corporate-style management (Frølich et al., 2014;Luoma et al., 2016;Parker, 2013;Sharrock, 2012;Whitley, 2012;Whitley et al., 2018).
Universities in several countries, including Finland, have embraced the movement towards developing institutional strategies.A significant turning point for Finnish universities occurred with the legislative reform in 2009, which granted them financial and legal independence.As a result, the Universities Act (2009) now requires that all universities must have an institutional strategy.However, the content of Finnish university strategies has received relatively little attention in research (Luoma et al., 2016), especially in comparison to the international research on university strategy perspectives (Frølich et al., 2014;Frølich;Hall & Lulich, 2021, Frølich et al., 2017;Fumasoli et al., 2020;Fumasoli & Huisman, 2013;Larsen, 2020).Research on university strategies, both in the Finnish context and internationally, has not extensively explored the role of external funding in shaping and influencing strategic decisions and actions of universities.Given the importance of understanding the complex relationship between revenues and prestige (Bolli et al., 2016;Miotto et al., 2020) and the limited research on university strategies, particularly from the perspective of external funding, this article aims to analyse university strategies within the context of Finnish universities from a strategy content perspective.
According to Luoma et al. (2016) and also Hall and Lulich (2021), institutional strategies can be seen as valid reflections of universities' strategic interests, choices, and actions within their dynamic governance environments.While strategies themselves do not directly determine university actions, the generic strategic management literature assumes that strategies serve as tools to promote operational excellence (Lillis & Lynch, 2014;Martin, 2021).However, previous research has not specifically addressed external funding as a distinct content domain within university strategies.External funding is of critical importance, as previous research indicates that "the management of financial resources now drives organizational strategy" (Parker, 2013, 7;Whitley et al., 2018).Furthermore, universities are increasingly willing to adjust their priorities based on their revenue streams (Fowles, 2014).
The purpose of this article is to shed light how universities deal with the pressures they face and integrate external funding into their institutional strategic decision-making.For this purpose, we explore the declared strategic goals for external funding of public universities and foundation universities in Finland.The following research questions guide this article: RQ1: What external funding-related goals and interests do universities articulate and communicate in their institutional strategies?

RQ2:
For what end is external funding sought?
To approach the research questions, we have chosen to apply the Resource Dependence Theory (RDT; Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003) and the Ecology of Games Metaphor (EGM) (Firestone, 1989;Lubell, 2013;Nisar, 2015).They support shedding light and conceptualising external funding related strategic agendas (what) and the rationale behind them (reasons and justifications) as communicated in the strategy documents.The study aims to provide valuable insights and contributions to such as policymakers, university leaders and managers, and higher education researchers in the higher education sector.The research findings may offer valuable guidance on how to align external funding goals with broader institutional strategies, enhancing universities to make informed decisions and resource management.
After the introduction, this article presents briefly literature related policies on external funding and thereafter how external funding of Finnish universities has developed since the autonomy reform (2009).From there, the focus is on the theoretical approach of the RDT and EGM.It then covers the data and its analysis and the findings.Finally, it offers main conclusions and discussion.

A brief overview of policies to enhance external funding
The literature extensively addresses the shift towards market-driven governance in higher education, with various scholars contributing to this topic (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010;Clark, 2001;Hicks, 2012;Nisar, 2015;Parker, 2013Parker, , 2012;;Shin et al., 2022;Teixeira & Koryakina, 2013).Pressure to maximise the volumes of external funding characterises the policy environments of universities, as they strive to balance the fragmented funding structures with decreasing governmental budget funding.External funding, contract funding, and project funding are all competition-based funding mechanisms (Shin et al., 2022), which represent third-stream funding sources (Clark, 2001), are referred to in this study as external funding.
Efforts to diversify revenue structures are underpinned by policies aimed at enhancing competitiveness, achieving institutional financial autonomy, and managing governmental budget cuts in core funding (Bennetot et al., 2015;Teixeira & Koryakina, 2013).The financial autonomy of universities also deals with the question of to what extent universities actually have the financial power to accept or reject different funding streams (Stachowiak-Kudla & Kudla, 2017).
The apparent consequence of such external funding policies is to reinforce mixed economies of universities (Sharrock, 2012).The dynamics of mixed economies (a mix of core funding and external funding) highlight both financial objectives and competition strategies as key drivers of the operations and goals of universities.Mixed economies manifest at different organisational levels by shaping the behaviour, values, standards and culture of the academic community overall (e.g.Kohtamäki, 2022;Parker, 2013;Sharrock, 2012).
While universities are cooperating and competing with each other, they also design strategies to distinguish themselves in a governance context where fierce global academic and financial competition is the reality (Bolli et al., 2016;Brankovic, 2018;Kosmützky & Krücken, 2015;Young et al., 2017).Generating external funding has become the dominant goal for academic work in such environments.Academic units are increasingly financially-driven agencies and have the critical task of acquiring and competing for various resources.Launched policies are also rhetorical expectations, and universities' internal resistance to institutional revenue diversification strategies and incentives do not always lead to successful policy expectations (Teixeira & Koryakina, 2013).However, the level of external research funding is recognised as a component of a university's overall scientific prestige and reputation (Kwiek, 2012;Nisar, 2015;Young et al., 2017).To promote a strong commitment to excellence in science and its centrality and relevance to the diverging needs of society, academics have become more motivated to compete for funding (Raudla et al., 2015;Young et al., 2017).
Universities' diversified funding structures tend to lead to governance complexity and potentially to greater financial and reputational risks (Sharrock, 2012).External funding has both intended and unintended impacts on the strategic and financial management of universities.The most paradoxical is that "the more successful the research groups are in obtaining project-based funding from diverse sources, the more strained becomes the budget of the university as a whole", producing both internal financial and strategic coordination problems (Raudla et al., 2015, 958).
Despite the importance of external funding and the perceived trend towards the financialisation of university strategies (e.g., Parker, 2013, Sharrock, 2012;Whitley et al., 2018), there is limited research available on the topic of external funding of university strategies.

External funding in Finnish university context
In Finland, the public policy mechanism to enhance universities' capacities and reform their financial and strategic management was to grant universities independent player status, both financially and legally (Authors 2022;Universities Act, 2009).The university legislation (Universities Act, 2009) enabled the previous state-agency universities to operate either as foundation-run universities (referred to as foundation universities here) or universities operating under public law (public universities).The legislation established new financial autonomy frameworks for universities, with one of the primary expectations being that universities increase the proportion of external funding in relation to their total funding.In all universities, external research funding constituted an average of 25% of total funding (range: 1-34%) in 2011, 24% (range: 3-33%) in 2016, 27% (range: 3-37%) in 2018, and 21% (range: 3-31%) in 2021.These statistics indicate a slight progress in universities' capacities to generate external funding.Furthermore, if a university was successful in securing external funding in 2011, it also tended to be successful in 2018, and vice versa (R = .689,P = .009).In the Vipunen database, there have been extensive changes to the 2019 financial data collections, which have an impact on the time series.Figure 1 presents valid and comparable financial information up until 2018.
Consistent with other European countries, there are indications of external funding concentration among a smaller number of universities, creating categories of successful and less successful institutions (Bennetot et al., 2015;Kwiek, 2012).In 2018, the range of external funding for  foundation universities was 29%-37%, while for public universities it was 3%-33%.The University of Arts, one of the public universities, had the smallest share of external funding (3%) due to its profile as an art university, relying primarily on state funding.Among the public universities, three stood out as notable players in securing external funding.
In 2020, the share of external funding of the university turnover was an average 30% in foundation universities and 24% in public universities (Vipunen, 2023).
Finnish universities are dependent on performance-based funding from the state.Dependence on performance-based funding refers to the extent to which a university, relies on performancebased funding as a key driver and determinant of its strategic decisions and actions.An average 58% of their revenues come from performance-based funding.One of the element of this funding is the volume of external funding.In the current performance-based funding formula its value is 12%.

Theoretical approach
In this study, RDT and EGM are used as guiding frameworks to explore the external funding-related strategic objectives, goals, and interests that universities articulate in their institutional strategies.RDT has been one of the leading theories in organisational studies for understanding interorganisational relationships and resource dependencies (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003) while EGM has been applied in different policy contexts to analyse the rationales of interaction and relationships among players and a group of players (Berardo & Lubell, 2019;Long, 1958;Lubell, 2013).It is important to note that the EGM serves here as a metaphor, distinct from the assumptions found in classical game theory codifications.Metaphors are valuable tools for exploring specific aspects of a complex reality, particularly when it is challenging to grasp the entire picture (Firestone, 1989;Lubell, 2013;Weaver-Hightower, 2008).Consequently, metaphors provide relevant and useful perspectives for organisational and policy studies.
Combining the RDT (Davis & Cobb, 2010;Fowles, 2014;Nienhüser, 2008;Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003) and the EGM (Berardo & Lubell, 2019;Firestone, 1989;Li, 2021;Long, 1958;Lubell, 2013;Nisar, 2015) this study enhanc,es understanding of how universities interact with their external environment to acquire and manage resources.Resources and stakes can be tangible and intangible in line with RDT and EGM.Long (1958, 252) pointed out that "games provide the players with a set of goals that give them a sense of success or failure.They provide them determinate roles and calculable strategies and tactics."Universities need tangible resources from their environment to acquire intangible resources and vice versa.
In the current competitive funding environment, the ability to attract external funding and the interest in doing so are considered critical for universities striving to establish themselves as competitive institutions.It is acknowledged that external funding provide significant positive externalities, including prestige, visibility, and a greater capacity to attract additional external funding, within the higher education context (Bennetot et al., 2015;Kwiek, 2012;Musselin, 2018;Nisar, 2015;Young et al., 2017).Consequently, universities with higher levels of external funding have more at stake in terms of these externalities.
RDT emphasises that all organisations must strategically manage their relationships with external organisations to secure essential resources, growth and survival.RDT is useful to examine how university organisations reduce their vulnerability by diversifying their resource base, building strong relationships with resource providers, or developing alternative resource acquisition strategies.EGM views university organisations as competing entities in a dynamic environment where they must adapt, survive, and evolve.EGM helps to explore how organisations compete, adapt to changing environmental conditions, and develop strategies to outperform their rivals.
The above environment, characterised by resource scarcity, competition, and uncertainty, influences organisational behavior and decision-making and creates competition pressures and dependencies to universities.RDT and EGM help to shed light how organisations respond to environmental pressures, how they adapt strategies, and further explore new resource opportunities.
The policies to expand external funding and pressures to add strategic management in higher education draw attention to the content of institutional strategies.An institutional strategy encapsulates universities' intentions and aspirations within a competitive environment (Doyle & Brady, 2018;Frølich et al., 2017;Luoma et al., 2016).In this study, the specific aspect of strategic content under investigation is external funding.
The RDT and the EGM are employed in this study to uncover their potential in illuminating the content of university strategies.In this approach, university strategy is seen as a platform of goals and tactics, where various interests and motives interact.

Data collection
Our study utilises document data as the primary data source to address two research questions: 1) What external funding-related goals and interests do universities articulate and communicate in their institutional strategies?and 2) For what purposes is external funding sought?Our dataset includes the corporate-level strategies of all 14 Finnish universities, covering the period between 2015 and 2020.The number of Finnish universities was reduced to 13 in 2019 after the merger between one public university and one foundation university.As a result of the merger, a new university was established, which continued to operate as a foundation university.
The strategies from Finnish universities were gathered by accessing and downloading them from the universities' publicly available websites.However, in two cases, we requested through e-mails access to the strategy documents directly from the administration of the respective universities.This was because their strategy documents were not available in their websites.
The strategies of the universities have undergone comprehensive discussions during their preparation within the universities.Subsequently, they were further deliberated upon and approved in their respective university boards.These strategies hold official status, and their implementation responsibility lies with the University President.

Data analysis
This study analysed the university strategies using content analysis, following the approach proposed by Schreier (2012).Content analysis served as the method to systematically examine and interpret the content within the strategy texts.Specifically, this article is solely focused on the qualitative analysis of external funding-related strategic agendas, as expressed in the institutional strategies.We initiated the analysis using data-driven content analysis and subsequently transitioned to a theory-driven content analysis approach to interpret the content within the institutional strategies.This study does not include an analysis of strategy execution or other related aspects.
During the content-analysis process, the initial step involved reading and interpreting the institutional strategies, while undertaking a pre-analysis of the strategic goals.Based on this preanalysis, external funding-related strategic goals were coded, grouped, and re-grouped using Atlas Ti software to categorise their content.The research questions guided the selection of data for the analysis.
In the first-round analysis, a data-driven approach was employed, resulting in the identification of substance-related themes.Subsequently, in the second-round analysis, a theory-driven approach was adopted, utilising the RDT and the EGM to identify and analyse the content of external funding-related strategic agendas.
The above process entailed categorising universities' goals, expectations, and actions that represented the "stakes" or interests within the current or emerging dynamics involving the universities, their external funding bodies, and other stakeholders.This also extended to the interactions among the universities themselves.In the third-round analysis, the theme-based clusters were integrated with the RDT and the EGM, resulting in the identification of four distinct clusters, which are presented in the Findings section.It is important to acknowledge that certain strategic goals encompassed more than one Cluster.In other words, some objectives and initiatives adopted by universities were relevant to multiple clusters simultaneously.However, when presenting results the same strategy content is not repeated across the clusters.

Results
Along the strategic goals and interests, the university strategies documented concrete actions as responses to pressures from the environment.Furthermore, strategies articulated expected benefits from external funding.Both the foundation universities and public universities (marked as F and P, respectively) articulated goals, interests, actions, and expectations that were categorised into the four clusters (I-IV): Institutional player status (Cluster I); Research cooperation, networks, and partners and networks (Cluster II); Competition for external funding and proactive organisational actions to boost external funding (Cluster III) that accounted for approximately two-thirds of the external funding-related strategic goals; and Promoting excellence of human resources (Cluster IV).
Despite the pressures for external funding, it was not featured in any distinct section of the institutional strategies.In one example, the structure of the entire strategy was divided into five parts: I. Solutions for global challenges, II.Strategic policies and goals, III.Goals for research, IV.Goals for education, and V. Goals for third mission activities.External-funding-related strategic goals and interests were integrated and documented in various parts of the universities' strategies using titles, such as "strategy enablers," "operating conditions," "solutions for global challenges," "strategic goals and tools," and "strategic actions."These titles reflected how external funding was an interactive relationship to the environment.

Strategic articulations on institutional player status
The strategic goals expressed the aim to promote institutional player status and enhance the university's global reputation and competitiveness (Table 1).The goals focused on building leadership, recognition and excellence.They shed light to university players' goals for being positioned nationally and/or internationally and their ambitions and interests concerning their statuses and profiles as internationally recognised scientific institutions.International profile and reputation statements were incorporated into all the strategies.Status and reputation goals and recognition abroad were highly desired.
The strategic goals strive for a distinguished status in relation to other university players.Scientific prestige, status, and reputation were publicly displayed statements to indicate the competence and capability of the university signalling their excellence in the eyes of potential university partners.Finnish university players sought to establish an international (and national) status as single players rather than being part or members of top university clans.
The strategies articulated statements concerning the universities' external images as top-tier research players.A foundation university presented compelling statements showcasing the rapid growth of its international profile.Being perceived as attractive by students, researchers, and various types of potential partners was among the interests and goals of universities that were seeking to extend and develop their levels of cooperation.Image attractiveness and character as a sought-after partner was also promoted globally (see Cluster II).
The statement of becoming "truly competitive and more focused" (F) indicated a strategic agenda to actively engage in the status games of world-class universities.Foundation universities had a strong interest and efforts in extending their international reputation.This pursuit of competitiveness represented a forward-looking approach to elevate the university's status and impact in the academic world and beyond.Universities also emphasised their key disciplines and research activities in their strategies.Some universities categorised their aspirational status and prestige using a ranking table.By doing so, they aimed to distinguish themselves and achieve higher positions in international rankings, thus enhancing their brand images.The pursuit of high rankings, particularly for top positions, serves to increase the visibility of these universities on the international stage.High rankings, especially for top positions, attract attention and make universities more visible internationally.
Universities competed for reputation, rankings, and recognition within the global academic community.They aimed to establish themselves as prestigious institutions by achieving excellence in research, teaching, and innovation.The table below highlights the key emphases and includes example quotes extracted from the strategic statements aimed at promoting universities' player status.
The above strategic goals indicate a strong focus on enhancing the university's status, reputation, and international standing to become a prominent player in the global higher education landscape.

Strategies for enhancing partnerships and collaboration with leading international universities, research institutes, and companies
Under this cluster the strategic goals focused on enhancing collaboration, research impact, and innovation to strengthen the university's position in the global landscape (Table 2).The strategies recognised partners, the highest level of academic research and multidisciplinary research

Emphases
Example quotes • Building competitiveness and excellence " . . . to build a university that is more competitive, truly excellent, genuinely creative, and multidisciplinary" (F)."The university community is being built to become globally, nationally, and regionally recognised and attractive as a key player in shaping the future."(F) "We are one of the most international universities in Finland" (P).
• Global recognition and leadership "Build excellence to position as a global leader in high-quality artistic activities" (F) "Acting as pioneer in technological development, nationally and internationally" (P)."We rank among the top 200 research universities in the world and the top 50 in strong research areas" (P)."Position among the foremost universities in the world" (P).
• Being internationally known and competitive "An internationally competitive science university" (P)."Internationally known as a multidisciplinary science university" (P).
• Improving reputation "Our goal is that our university will have an international and national image, and its reputation and attractiveness will significantly improve" (P).
required to position institutions as research universities.Strong research areas, emerging research areas, and research profiles were articulated expectations of such externalities.
To enhance its status and reputation, a university must be connected to other top-level universities.The strategic goals and interest in cooperation, partners and networks reflected desired interactions between the university and its partners and other key stakeholders addressing the responsiveness of universities to their environment.Selecting one's partners, prioritising key partners, and preferring international partners and company partners are examples of the strategic goals and interests that affect with whom (players) these universities favoured collaboration.Only one university reported common goal setting with its external stakeholders in its strategy.Universities sought internal research cooperation across disciplines and departments.
Foundation universities pursued selectiveness by strategically identifying and prioritising research networks that could be developed through high-impact international partnerships with

Emphases
Example quotes • Partnerships with industry and businesses "We are building even stronger partnerships with industry and businesses for mutual benefit" (F)."We actively participate in creating new business, companies, and jobs around our research."(P) • Research networks with international partners "Strengthen research networks with high-impact international partnerships at leading research institutes and initiatives" (F).
"We build research environments with critical mass, high ambition, and strong international networks" (P)."We select the best partners for our strategic areas of expertise based on scientific terms without geographical boundaries" (P).
"University partnerships are developed on a fieldspecific basis and based on the university's profile.
Strong partnerships between research teams and high-level universities and research institutes will be continued" (P).
• Commercialization of research findings "Improving the recognition of the value of research findings with significant commercial potential" (F)."We promote the commercialization of research results and the creation of new companies" (F)."A wide range of efforts are being made to promote the commercialization of research results in cooperation with funders and industry players" (P) • Multidisciplinary collaboration "Build a university that is more competitive, more focused, but also more collaborative across disciplines" (F)."Concise and well-organised interaction with stakeholders and multidisciplinary research and development platforms and programs that combine various fields of science enable the integration of cutting-edge science and applied research, linking them to practical innovations at different levels."(F) • Cultivating a culture of international collaboration "We significantly strengthen the culture of international collaboration."(F).
• Engaging in prestigious international scientific conferences and networks "Our researchers participate in the most prestigious international scientific conferences and other networks in their field" (P).
• Becoming a desired partner "The university is a desired partner that provides its expertise to public authorities and companies, generates innovations, and effectively communicates information outside the scientific community" (P).
leading research institutes.This emphasis on selectiveness signifies the universities' intention to focus their resources and efforts on targeted collaborations that have the potential for significant outcomes and global influence.Likewise, public universities aspired to establish new partnerships and research cooperation, actively seeking the best collaborators for their strategic areas of expertise, based on scientific merit, and without being constrained by geographical boundaries.
Strategic interests were targeted to generate beneficial contributions (externalities) through research collaboration, partnerships, and networking.One key contribution was international research networks used as avenues to build international research environments.Mutual distribution of gains between a university and its partners was also given attention.Contributions were made to develop varied specific study fields or research areas (universities are multidisciplinary) rather than targeted to one or two specific fields.
Opportunities for commercialisation were expected as a potential mutual benefit of collaboration with companies.Strategies articulated expectations related to innovations and to the dissemination of innovations beyond the academic community.Benefits also occurred at the individual level when cooperating with prestigious universities.Individual-level activities were also mentioned to increase the possibilities for international cooperation, specifically with toplevel universities.
Public universities repeatedly emphasised their role in searching for solutions to societal challenges while foundation universities highlighted company relationships.Cooperation with companies was connected to potential commercialisation as an output of such externally funded activities.
Universities noted the patterns and nature of organisation-level relationships with partners.These relationships are expected to be reciprocal, interactive, systematic, and close.Long-term arrangements and mutually beneficial relationships provide universities with greater commitment and enhance their capacities to tackle the great global challenges together.Universities seek both public and private partners for joint interests and collaboration.European research funding was mentioned as an enabler toward having closer and increased cooperation with international partners.
The strategies were status-construction driven and used characterisations like cutting-edge research, first-class science, and high-impact partners.Research capacity, competitiveness, and status were both outputs and expected benefits from connections with high-status organisations.The table below presents the key emphases and includes example quotes extracted from the strategic statements aimed at promoting partnerships and collaboration.
To sum up, Cluster II focused on cooperation, partnerships, and network-building with the aim of extending research cooperation, strengthening internationalisation, reputations and status while nurturing research capacity and bolstering status and competitiveness.These collaborations can be viewed as strategic moves within the larger game, aimed at enhancing research capabilities, securing funding, and expanding universities' networks.

Strategic goals on competing for financial resources
Universities articulated proactive organisational actions to boost external funding as an agenda where the university is a player taking proactive actions internally (Table 3).Strategic interests, goals, and activities focused on the professionalisation of the application architecture (practices and processes) of external research funding.Universities establish institution-wide efficient support mechanisms, incentives, and central resources and services that are intended to enhance beneficial access to national and international external funding.Goals as organisational actions were set to advance and improve internal research funding application processes.
Universities use institutional strategies for internal communication and information.Increasing the share of international research funding is one of the main external funding-related goals and messages designed for internal communication.By highlighting this message internally, universities aimed to mobilise and incentivise their academic community towards attracting external funding.To specify and inform the target level, universities define external funding performance indicators in their strategies.However, only two universities used quantitative metrics for their external funding goals.Universities determined their strategic priorities with a focus on external funding to support their institutional research profile and their international external funding sources.
The national state funding model has an indicator for external research funding (9%, of which 3% is international research funding), thereby offering an incentive for universities to compete for external research funding.In their strategies, universities conveyed direct messages to all researchers, encouraging them to proactively seek and apply for funding, with a specific emphasis on acquiring new funds from international sources.
Internal organisational actions were input goals that were seeking to add to the total volume of external funding at the university level.For example, funding was intended to "remain high" (F), "increase" (P), be "significant" (P), and "double by 2020" (P).

Emphases
Example quotes • Active project funding applications "Researchers at different stages of their careers will be encouraged to apply more actively for project funding" (F)."All members of the university community must strive to impact university funding" (P).
• Professional funding application architecture "We invest in think tanks and other project development and improve our funding application support processes" (P)." [arranging] supporting services, specifically to obtain international funding" (P)."Increasing the amount of competitive external funding and improving the efficiency of local research services" (P).
• Securing financial sustainability and diversifying funding "Secure financial sustainability by diversifying our funding base, promoting public funding that rewards excellence and impact" (F)."Secure a solid financial position through diverse funding streams" (P)."We see our financial prerequisites as a whole consisting of national and international research and education funding through the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Academy of Finland, Tekes, the EU, and companies" (P).
• Increasing external research funding "The share of external and competitive research funding in total funding will increase" (P).
• Breaking traditional boundaries and gaining a competitive advantage "We create a structure, infrastructure, tools, and services that break traditional boundaries and provide a competitive advantage on the international level" (F)."We allocate resources to new initiatives that have the potential to become internationally renowned and attractive in the fields of research, education, and application" (F).
• Promoting international research funding "International research funding accounts for 25% of the university's external funding" (P).
Some universities in their strategies emphasised diversified funding structures and establishing the financial frameworks for an entire university, including both project-funded research and statefunded teaching activities.
The table below presents key emphases and includes example quotes extracted from strategic statements that address the topic of competition for financial resources.
Universities articulated the above goals with the intention of increasing research activity and research clusters by building high-level modern research environments and infrastructures.Universities set such goals as investing in attractive multidisciplinary research platforms, phenomenon-based research platforms, and specifically internationally attractive research platforms.

Strategies to promote the excellence of human resources
University strategies provided clear goals, actions, and directions for human resource (HR) policies and practices, with a focus on enhancing the excellence of staff and front-line teaching and research efforts (Table 4).The human resource-related goals and interests encompassed various aspects, including new international recruitment standards, policies aimed at increasing international recruitment, developing tenure-track systems for professors, and implementing practices to attract the best candidates for research endeavours.Specifically, the universities sought to establish new international recruitment standards to attract talents from around the world with successful funding records and high capacities to obtain new funding and cultivate research networks.In this way universities aimed to bolster its research capabilities and increase its competitiveness on the global stage.
Recruitment goals were often aligned with internationalisation interests, aiming to attract leading and well-connected researchers in their respective fields.The objective was to invest in open recruitment strategies, thereby drawing the best experts globally while also identifying promising new talents.University strategies emphasised the establishment of research teams and research platforms focused on specific key areas.To achieve these objectives, universities aimed to tailor their human resources strategies to fit their competitive funding and academic

Emphases
Example quotes • Attracting internationally prominent experts and new talents "We are strengthening our competitive edge by continuing to focus our recruitment and resources on our key areas of competence" (F)."We recruit, support, and develop brave innovators of the future" (F)."In order to obtain the best experts, we invest in the open recruitment of internationally prominent experts and new talents" (F)."Our recruitment practises are efficient and enhance internationalisation" (P).
• Abilities for international funding and research "When recruiting researchers and teachers, consideration will be given to their ability to acquire new international funding, recruit the best students, and carry out internationally recognised research and high-quality teaching" (P).
• Tenure-track model for strategic recruitments "We also use the professor's tenure-track model to recruit new top researchers to strengthen our strategic research programmes" (P).
• Qualifications for professorship "In addition to scientific and pedagogical merit, professors' qualifications require aptitude, international experience, and genuine opportunities for success in competitive research funding application processes" (P).
environment.They strategically recruit the best researchers, prioritise the recruitment of international researchers and the best team players.By aligning their recruitment efforts with internationalisation goals and emphasizing team-building, universities sought to enhance their research capabilities, strengthen their global presence, and position themselves as leading institutions.
Professors, researchers, and teachers were specified as key persons in acquiring external funding, recruiting students, and building research capacity.The orientation toward internationalisation was associated with human-resource-related capacities, such as by building capacity through international experience, by increasing the capacity to acquire new international funding, and increasing the capacity to conduct international-level research and teaching.
Table below addresses the emphases and shows example quotes from the strategic statements that focus on promoting the excellence of human resources.
The above indicated that universities actively competed for talented students and staff.They made efforts to attract and retain high-quality human resources.These strategic goals signify a clear emphasis on attracting top talents, fostering research excellence, and cultivating an internationally competitive and recognised personnel.

Discussion
In this section we highlight the complex and evolving nature of universities' strategic decisionmaking when navigating within and across multiple resource environments.Furthermore, we discuss the limitations of cohesive organisational behavior inside universities, the presence of interplay between institutional goals and individual goals, and the changing and organic nature of resource-related relationships and interactions that are important to take into account in strategic decision-making.
The major external funding related strategic goal (Cluster I Institutional prestige and player status) reveals universities' dependence on science and researchers and the dynamics of academic research (cf.Whitley 2000).However, this dependence is not often acknowledged when strong financial dependence on performance-based funding dominates the discussion.Finnish universities place significant importance on meeting the goal to be accounted as leading science institutions (Clusters I and II).Promoting the excellence of human resources (Cluster IV) and competition for external funding (Cluster III) become crucial means for achieving the strategic master goal, as they enhance universities' ability to support research activities, attract talented researchers, and contribute to advancing knowledge in their respective fields.While financial dependence on performance-based funding may dominate discussions, recognising the strategic dependence on external funding for scientific excellence emphasises the broader dimension of universities' reliance on resources from their environment.This strategic dependence highlights the link between external funding and the pursuit of research excellence and scientific reputation.
The strategic goals and tactics of universities (Clusters I-IV) indicate that university players are engaged in competitive games within their environment in line with the EGM.Universities' strategic goals can be understood as responses to and their management arenas' heuristic tools for both uncertain and dynamic university environments (cf.Lubell, 2013).They strive to attract and retain the resources to enhance their academic reputation and competitive standing (Clusters I-IV).However, it is the individual academics and research teams that compete for research funding and recognition (Thoenig & Paradeise, 2016;Young et al., 2017).Research funding agencies typically allocate grants and resources based on the quality of research proposals and individual researchers' track records.Competition takes place also between the institutions when universities are becoming more concerned about the status of their universities relative to other institutions (Musselin, 2018;Thoenig & Paradeise, 2016;Young et al., 2017).Universities and individual academics may perceive and face different policy directions due to variations in disciplinary fields, institutional contexts, and regional or national policies.This diversity in policy directions can create further uncertainties for universities while aligning their overall strategies with the needs and aspirations of individual academics and research teams (also Larsen, 2020;Young et al., 2017).
Additional uncertainties arise from rapidly evolving research landscapes, shifting funding priorities, and changing governmental policies (cf.Firestone 1989;Kwiek, 2012;Larsen, 2020;Lillis & Lynch, 2014;Shin et al., 2022;Young et al., 2017).The characterisation of universities as complex and loosely coupled organisations, as described by Orton and Weick (1990) Thoenig and Paradeise (2016), suggests that universities consist of diverse units and subsystems that operate relatively independently.In the context of academia, loose coupling implies that the work carried out by individual academics may not align closely or directly with the strategic goals set at the institutional level.
The aspiration of Finnish universities to achieve both institutional distinctiveness and international connectedness (Clusters I and II) reflects a desire to maintain a unique identity while actively participating in global academic networks.These strategic goals emphasise the importance of balancing local and international priorities to enhance the reputation, research collaborations, and global visibility of Finnish universities (cf.Whitley & Gläser, 2014).It also appeared that several universities preferred to simultaneously be competitive locally, regionally, nationally and internationally because competition occurs in all these domains (Cluster I).Furthermore, the preference for not excluding selections or choices between different funding sources, as noted in the literature (Raudla et al., 2015;Stachowiak-Kudla & Kudla, 2017), suggests that universities seek to diversify their funding portfolio (Cluster III).
The above considerations reflect the complexities in strategic decision-making that universities, including Finnish universities, encounter.Universities also articulated goals that may seem contradictory or at least challenging to reconcile.These goals emerge from different strategic domains or "games" in which universities participate, such as competition for research funding, internationalisation, community engagement, and societal impact.Each game has its own set of rules, dynamics, and expected outcomes, and universities must navigate these interconnected games while considering their individual objectives and external pressures (cf.Crozier & Friedberg, 1980.).The interconnections between these games are often unpredictable, challenging universities' assumptions about their strategies and the expected outcomes (cf.Nisar, 2015.).The inter-connections between games are much more unpredictable than Finnish university strategies linearly assumed (cf.Nisar, 2015;Firestone 1989).Each game is influenced by multiple sources, and the flows of resources and influences into any given game come from various directions.This viewpoint aligns well with the external funding environments of universities, where they must navigate multiple funding sources, stakeholder expectations, policy changes, and societal needs.The works by Nisar (2015) and Firestone (1989) explore these dynamics further, emphasising the organic emergence of games, the limitations of individual perspectives, and the unpredictable nature of interconnections.
Institutional strategy can be seen as a manifestation of the interaction between strategic management rhetoric and public policies.The works of Frølich et al. (2017), Hall and Lulich (2021); Fumasoli et al. (2020), andNisar (2015) likely explore this relationship further, highlighting how external factors and policy environments shape institutional strategies.Financial autonomy policy reforms often focus on empowering universities as organisational agencies.However, the ability of universities to compete and function as cohesive organisations is limited, as noted by Firestone (1989), Nisar (2015), and Whitley and Gläser (2014).The dynamics within universities, influenced by internal games and individual actors, affect how institutional goals are pursued and realised.While external funding games can influence academic behavior, as mentioned by Chubb and Watermeyer (2017), individual actors within the university also have their own motivations, goals, and games that shape their behavior and decision-making.Interactions within games lack stable structures, and the collection of games is constantly changing.This means that centrally guided structures from the top or outside the organisation are often absent (Crozier & Friedberg, 1980;Nisar, 2015).This case is particularly true of external funding games where external funding bodies, policy makers, universities, academic departments and individual academics all play a crucial role.

Conclusions and suggestions
Universities face increasing uncertainty and pressures how to deal with changing competitive environments.This study analysed what external funding-related goals and interests do universities articulate and communicate in their institutional strategies and for what end is external funding sought.We raised these two questions and applied RDT and EGM as theoretical approaches to enhance understanding of how universities interact with their external environment to acquire and manage resources.Finnish universities face competition not only from local or regional higher education institutions but also from universities around the world.The RDT and the EGM offer valuable perspectives on how universities interact with their environment and the challenges they face.RDT and EGM revealed that universities' strategy content reflected multiple goals, actions and strategies, potential beneficial financial externalities and research university externalities (cf.Hall & Lulich, 2021;Lillis & Lynch, 2014;Luoma et al., 2016).A top-tier research university status (Cluster I) was expected to contribute such as institutional academic excellence, new high-level external partnerships, and more external funding.Universities' cooperation, partners, and networking (Cluster II) focused on interaction with international leading research players to gain benefits from long-term international cooperation (stronger research capacity and better potential to win funding from varied instruments that require partnerships).University players' internal actions to enhance the internal capacity of funding application architecture (Cluster III) indicated that universities have launched more proactive external funding tactics.Human resources (Cluster IV) focused on the recruitment of top-level, productive, externally engaged international researchers.Below, we formulate reflections between universities' strategic agendas and the RDT and with the EGM as a metaphor.
(1) External funding goals reflected the public funding policies, strategic management rhetoric, and the key features of science institutions.Universities were multi-goal setters, but they place one single goal above the other goals, which is consistent with the RDT and EGM.(cf.Berardo & Lubell, 2019, Firestone 1989;Lubell, 2013;Nisar, 2015;Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003).
Universities aspired to grow their institutional status towards the prestigious top science institutions.This acknowledged the importance and dependence on science.It can also be seen as a strategy to decrease uncertainty and guarantee the continuity.The top status was expected to boost academic mastery performance.Universities used the rhetoric and wording of strategic management related to operational excellence (potential externality) for gathering external stakeholders (Brankovic, 2018;Hall & Lulich, 2021;Martin, 2021;Morphew, Fumasoli and Stensaker 2018).Behind the status of a top research university was seen potential for more resources and autonomy.Compared to public universities, Finnish foundation universities have shown relatively higher success in securing external research funding (see Section Background).These foundation universities often excel in technical study fields, which are known for generating significant external funding.Access to external funding grants these universities different funding environments and greater financial flexibility.Furthermore, it has been observed that universities with a track record of successful external funding tend to attract more funding opportunities (Auranen & Nieminen, 2010;Brankovic, 2018;Hicks, 2012;Parker, 2013;Shin et al., 2022).
(2) Strategies articulated how to be effective within the master goal.Prestige and status were aspired as a single institution apart and without cooperating with other Finnish universities whereas international leading research universities were preferred.In a couple of universities, the university ranking games affected goal setting, which came out as position-seeking and the desire to be noted as world-class research universities.Competing for ranking status (a ranking game) was visible only in a few strategies.In the Shanghai-ranking list, one Finnish university (public) was among the top 100.
(3) External funding-related tactics suggest that competitiveness associated with top research university status stimulated responsiveness through the competitive tactical strategy content.As Long (1958) pointed out, games give goals to players.University strategies did not always articulate mechanisms for achieving their priorities (Hall & Lulich, 2021), but RDT and EGM reveal that Finnish university strategies did reflect strategies and tactical games.Universities promoted research partner games that focused on acquiring international prestigious university partners, funding competition games to provide professionalised funding application architecture, and the HR game that sought recruitment of top-level human resources (cf.Brankovic, 2018;Hicks, 2012).The HR game was a signal of what type of academics universities preferred to recruit, how they are expected to behave, and how they are promoted (Chubb & Watermeyer, 2017).Tactics were considered relative to the universities' external and internal environments (cf.Fumasoli et al., 2020;Larsen, 2020;Lillis & Lynch, 2014).Interaction and exchanges occurred among and between various players shaping uncertainty and its dynamic (cf.Firestone 1989;Lubell, 2013;Nisar, 2015).
(4) In line with RDT and EGM, the strategies reflected what behaviour or favourable set of conditions (inputs) is required from one competition to get benefits in other competition (cf.Firestone 1989;Larssen 2020;Lubell, 2013;Young et al., 2017).Strategies as goal platforms linked external funding, using the sets of goals, interests, actions, and solutions to perceived university environments (cf.Larsen, 2020;Lillis & Lynch, 2014;Parker, 2013).Goal-setting revealed that universities articulated contradictory goals.Strategic external funding goals culminated in positioning and aims to guarantee access to resources.As found in the previous research (Luoma et al., 2016), Finnish university strategies do not fundamentally differ and lack new strategic choices (cf.Hall & Lulich, 2021;Lillis & Lynch, 2014).Universities can articulate similar external funding agendas, but universities are not identical financial management or strategic management players (Authors 2022).Altogether, university strategies addressed that universities were actively engaged in resource acquisition, adapted to resource dependencies on their environment, and participated in competitive dynamics to thrive and excel in the academic ecosystem.The performance funding indicator of the state funding model created a strong incentive for Finnish universities and had a significant impact on shaping the strategies of universities (cf.Bolli et al., 2016;Fowles, 2014;Shin et al., 2022;Young et al., 2017).While the performance funding indicator provided an incentive for universities to meet certain targets, their strategies also indicated that scientific research and the work of researchers were essential for their institutional reputation, academic standing, and ability to attract funding and resources.
(5) This study suggests avoiding considering the university, its key functions and its strategic goals and decision-making in isolation of their other key realities.Rather actors within the management arena should take a holistic approach and recognise strategically significant dependencies, which means recognising the scientific and social contexts within which universities operate and of which they are dependent.
This study did not analyse individual universities' game behaviour or the contextual information or history of Finnish universities.University strategies may be written primarily for their main external stakeholders, and strategies may mirror their external financial accountability and performance accountability and financial resource dependencies rather than actual strategic goals (Luoma et al., 2016;Parker, 2013).Strategy content can also justify actions and solutions already taken (Fumasoli et al., 2019;Hall & Lulich, 2021;Parker, 2013).
To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of post-reform external funding from the perspective of strategic management teams and individual academic players, additional qualitative studies and in-depth interviews are required.These measures will enable a deeper analysis and capture a more nuanced picture of the subject in individual universities.

Figure
Figure 1.Shares of external funding relative to total university revenue in 2011, 2016 and 2018 (Vipunen, 2023).