Rooted locally, reaching globally: A case for international co-creation

A smaller institution’s case for going further

What does it mean to be rooted in a place and yet reach beyond it? For smaller higher education institutions (HEI), this tension sits at the heart of the internationalisation question. The pull toward local relevance is real, but so is the risk of closing in on oneself. Yet the evidence is hard to ignore; institutions that invest in genuine cross-border partnerships do not lose their local footing. They deepen and broaden it (Jones et al, 2021).

For Arcada, as a Nordic institution with a strong commitment to research, development, and societal impact, our work is rooted in the communities, welfare systems, and sustainability challenges of the Swedish speaking region. But the most pressing challenges of our time (in health, welfare, climate, and democratic life) do not respect national borders. Meeting them calls for the deliberate, trust-based construction of knowledge across institutions, cultures, and contexts.

This is why Arcada has invested in building genuine Nordic university partnerships, including with Mälardalen University (MDU)in Sweden, as a foundation for joint education and RDI initiatives.

The scholarly debate backs the instinct to broaden co-creation. A large-scale study of European science systems by Kwiek (2021), found that the growth of European research output over 2009–2018 was driven almost entirely by internationally co-authored papers. Crucially, Kwiek also shows that this effect is not correlated with institutional size: the level of international research collaboration bears negligible relationship to a system’s total publication output or the size of its academic workforce. Smaller institutions that invest in cross-border partnerships are not playing catch-up; they are playing a different and potentially more impactful game. A separate study by Khor and Yu (2016) examining young universities confirms that internationally co-authored publications achieve consistently higher citation impact than non-collaborative work, even when controlling for disciplinary differences.

The argument goes deeper than bibliometrics, however. Contemporary scholarship (e.g. Jones et al, 2021) on what is often called the “third mission” of universities (their role beyond teaching and research, as active contributors to societal wellbeing) makes clear that this mission is increasingly impossible to pursue effectively within national boundaries alone. As Compagnucci and Spigarelli (2020) document in their systematic review, the challenges facing welfare systems, healthcare, climate, and democratic institutions resist single-discipline and single-country solutions. Meeting them requires what they term “multidisciplinary and transnational cooperation,” especially for the complex, wicked problems that define our era.

There is also a specific case for smaller institutions. The kind of deep, trust-based, co-creative partnerships that generate the most durable societal impact are not necessarily easier for large HEI to build. Research on internationalisation through co-operative inquiry (Petersen et al., 2022) highlights that sustainable collaborations depend on mutual benefit, genuine methodological compatibility, and a willingness to build capability on both sides. These qualities are not the exclusive property of large institutions and can flourish more readily between smaller partners with complementary strengths and shared values.

It was with this backdrop in mind that a group of Arcada colleagues travelled to Mälardalen University (MDU) in May 2026, to attend the Global Impact Forum and Sunrise Summit and to meet with colleagues at the university.

Our goals for the visit

When our group set out for visiting MDU in Västerås, we carried a focused set of ambitions. At its core, this trip was an investment in the future of our own institution and an opportunity to learn how a Swedish university of comparable mission, though larger scale, has built structural bridges between academia, public sector, industry, and civil society in pursuit of real-world impact. We wanted to understand how MDU has operationalised co-creation in practice, and whether the models we encountered could translate to our own, smaller context. The question we brought with us was not only what MDU does differently – but whether what they do could be done together.

More specifically, we aimed to explore new arenas for research and education collaboration in welfare technology, health innovation, business and societal transformation. We had arranged in advance to meet with colleagues at the Center for Welfare Change – a collaborative and transdisciplinary platform we had followed with interest for its work integrating digitalisation and welfare development. An equally important goal was to identify concrete pathways for joint projects, courses, or joint research applications going forward.

The question we brought with us was not only what MDU does differently – but whether what they do could be done together.

Programme we participated in

Over three days we, in addition to meetings, took part in two connected events. The first, the Sunrise Summit (19 May), brought together the SUNRISE alliance, i.e. a European university network built around quadruple helix collaboration between academia, industry, government, and civil society. The second, the Global Impact Forum (20–21 May), was a larger open conference under the theme Connect for Global Impact.

• Sunrise Summit – Quadruple helix voices and alliance work packages. Working sessions across SUNRISE work packages with participants from academia, industry, public sector, and civil society.
• Global impact forum (day 1) – Opening ceremony, keynotes (Dougald Hine, Uday Salunkhe, Sonali Pednekar), innovation showcases including Pladdra, wastewater and sustainability projects, and student co-creation session.
• Global impact forum (day 2) – Co-creation with society showcases, Center for Welfare Change session presented by Petra von Heideken Wågert, and dedicated meeting with Center for Welfare Change team.

The Sunrise Summit gave us an insider’s view of how an alliance-based university network functions in practice. Hearing from voices across the quadruple helix – from Hitachi Energy’s programme management to ABF’s civil society perspective – illustrated the depth and long history of partnership MDU has cultivated in its region. The historical aspect was also highlighted by Professor Anette Hallin during a lunch meeting, as an explanation for the well-functioning co-creation at MDU, along with good leadership. Parallel working sessions around the alliance’s work packages showed that collaboration at this scale requires governance structures as much as goodwill and curiosity.

The Global Impact Forum opened with an emphasis on moving from separation to collaboration, and on the power of collective intelligence in a polarised world – themes that ran through every subsequent session. Over two days we followed keynotes, innovation showcases, student co-creation sessions, and parallel working groups in a format that rewarded active participation and “samkunskapande”. What that word means – and why it matters for Arcada – is the subject of part two.

In part two of this series, "Samkunskapande" – What it really means to build knowledge together, we reflect on the key ideas and insights from the three days – including the concept of samkunskapande as a model for co-creation, what we took away from our dedicated meetings at MDU, and what concrete collaboration might look like going forward.

Authors: Tomas Träskman, Lotta Eronen, Ira Jeglinsky-Kankainen, Christa Tigerstedt, and Camilla Wikström-Grotell

Co-authors: Erica Adlercreutz, Jonas Danielsson, Mark Dougherty, Anu Nyberg, Åsa Rosengren, and Susanne Åhdal

References 

Compagnucci, L. & Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161.

Jones, E., Leask, B., Brandenburg, U. & de Wit, H. (2021). Global social responsibility and the internationalisation of higher education for society. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(4), 330–347

Khor, K.A. & Yu, L.G. (2016). Influence of international co-authorship on the research citation impact of young universities. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1095–1110.

Kwiek, M. (2021). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629–2649.

Petersen, I.H., Kruss, G. & van Rheede, N. (2022). Strengthening the university third mission through building community capabilities. Science and Public Policy, 49(6), 890–904.