What is the initiative and where is it implemented (city or country, for example)?
The initiative originated in Norway due to a need for collaborative action to answer the urgent demands of medical and social crises. Under extreme conditions of uncertainty and time pressure, the Norwegian government turned to academic experts while developing a collective response to COVID-19 to eliminate potential damage to health, economic, political and social structures. The government was expected to provide sustainable solutions. With help from notable experts and human and institutional action, the government implemented informed research-based actions. This case study highlights the pros and cons of this approach and assumes further application of the improved model for potential crisis response in the future.
How was the initiative established? How was it implemented?
There is no single source; instead, collaborative action arose from individual responses to the crisis, shared personal experiences and the need to provide the general public with fact-checked information.
A collaboration between two expert agencies - the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, under the leadership of the Ministry of Health and Care Services – navigated the early stage of the COVID-19 crisis. These agencies worked closely with international and interdisciplinary institutions.
The early response to the crisis was effective due to the early recognition of the problem and perception of it as a threat requiring attention and adequate response. The government introduced the action plan and necessary measures to the public to eliminate the potential threat of spreading the virus further.
Which stakeholders are involved in the design and/or implementation of the initiative? Which sectors do they represent?
Two main stakeholders share in the success of the initiative. The government remains the central legal agency in navigating the crisis response; thus, the success of such an attempt relies on government capacity and legitimacy (Christensen and Laegreid, 2020, as cited in Gornitzka and Stolen, 2021). Christensen and Laegreid define government capacity as the resources available to the government and the preparedness to dispose of these resources, while government legitimacy according to the authors stands for the citizens’ trust in the government’s actions and the transparency of the implemented measures and impact evaluation (Christensen and Laegreid, 2020, as cited in Gornitzka and Stolen, 2021).
Research-intensive universities contribute significantly, as a government’s decision-making must be backed up by facts and a knowledge base in such an environment. Research-intensive universities provide an emergency knowledge repository that can be initiated as a part of the government’s crisis response. They are equipped with high-level expertise and scientific competence to benefit society in times of considerable uncertainty.
What are the impacts of the initiative in terms of facilitating lifelong learning? Who does it benefit and how?
The collaboration between the Norwegian government and the research-based universities, along with individual academic efforts, had a significant impact on medical, political, social, technological, economic, and educational sectors.
The University of Oslo, the leading research-intensive university, contributed to informed decision-making with regards to implementing relevant and effective medical solutions to the core health crisis. Health science and research in medical and biological aspects made it possible to assess contact/proximity risk and mental health impact accurately.
The transparency of legal action implemented enabled the general public to respond immediately. In the case of the law proposed by the Norwegian government at the beginning of the health crisis, there was an opportunity to express criticism, which resulted in major amendments during parliamentary sessions. The timely intervention of independent academics affected the public perspective on the boundaries of legal jurisdiction under emergency conditions.
Experts in humanities and social sciences helped to navigate so-called human aspects of the pandemic rhetoric around the issue, trust towards information updates and the role of social media. Experienced immunologists contributed to awareness by engaging in public outreach initiatives such as blogging and sharing personal and professional experiences through social media outlets, thus providing credible first-hand sources of information and interacting informally with the public.
District Health Information System (DHIS) – an open-source software platform for data collection, management and analysis - accelerated case detection and surveillance on active cases. The software was replicated by various ministries of health in low- and middle-income countries.
The expert committee, chaired by a professor and the head of the Department of Economics, analysed the long-term economic impacts of specific measures against the pandemic. The interdisciplinary approach towards crisis management allowed balancing between protective measures and the prevention of economic collapse.
The unprecedented public health hazard pushed educational institutions towards full-time digitization overnight. Due to solid infrastructure and general widespread access to technology, Norway did not suffer debilitating losses in educational provision. Private funding enabled a smooth transition and a high level of flexibility in decision-making, independent of the governmental budget. The institutional and financial autonomy in Norway ensured stability and resilience in crisis.
The multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration between stakeholders is a key factor in the positive impact of the actions mentioned above. Since the pandemic extends beyond a medical crisis, the public administration, industries and individual agents need to work together to influence the effectiveness of measures introduced by the government.
The long-term political, social and economic consequences of full and partial lockdowns are still under-researched; moreover, there is a tendency to share research results on immediate channels such as journalism and social media, leaving no room for quality assurance. The lack of quality control offered by peer-review is both a limitation and a potential threat.
References
Gornitzka, A. and Stolen, S. 2021. University challenge - The role of research-intensive universities in crisis management. In: S. Bergan, et al. eds. Higher education's response to the COVID-19 pandemic - Building a more sustainable and democratic future. s.l.:Council of Europe, pp. 107–114.