Advertisement

Higher Education Policy

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom in the Nordic Context — Similarities and Differences

  • Terhi Nokkala
  • Agneta Bladh
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Owing to their common history, similarities in language and culture, long traditions in political collaboration and the shared Nordic societal model, an assumption is often made that the operational and regulatory context of universities is similar in the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In this article, we examine the relationship between the Nordic higher education institutions and their specific governments. The interpretation of institutional autonomy and academic freedom in the Nordic countries is discussed with support from recently collected empirical data, Nordic university legislation and the topical research literature. We describe the differences in legislation on academic freedom and the status of institutional autonomy, as assessed by a recent study by the European University Association and ask whether the autonomy frameworks of the universities in the Nordic countries are as congruous as their shared history and similar societal contexts suggest. We also ask whether the increase of institutional autonomy in the Nordic countries has contributed to a decline or rearticulation of academic freedom. We conclude that despite the differences between Nordic countries, the level of institutional autonomy is relatively high in comparison with their European counterparts, with most restrictions found in financial autonomy. Concerns about academic freedom are mainly centred on freedom of research, which has been restricted as a consequence of both increased institutional autonomy and new steering mechanisms.

Keywords

Nordic countries institutional autonomy academic freedom 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aarrevaara, T. (2010) ‘Academic freedom in a changing academic world’, European Review 18 (1): 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A. and Sapir, A. (2010) ‘The governance and performance of universities: Evidence from Europe and the US’, Economic Policy 25 (61): 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Askling, B. (2012a) Expansion, Självständighet, Konkurrens. Vart är den högre utbildningen på väg?, Göteborg: Göteborgs Universite.Google Scholar
  4. Askling, B. (2012b) ‘Integration and/or Diversification: The Role of Structure in Meeting Expectations on Higher Education’, HEIK Working Paper Series 2012/04, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  5. Askling, B. and Henkel, M. (2006) ‘Higher Education Institutions’, in M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds.) Transforming Higher Education, A Comparative Study, 2nd edn, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 85–100.Google Scholar
  6. Aula, H.-M. and Tienari, J. (2011) ‘Becoming ‘world-class’? Reputation-building in a university merger’, Critical Perspectives on International Business 7 (1): 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Auranen, O. and Nieminen, M. (2010) ‘University research funding and publication performance — An international comparison’, Research Policy 39 (6): 22–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Badley, G. (2009) ‘A place from where to speak: The university and academic freedom’, British Journal of Educational Studies 57 (2): 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bennich-Björkman, L. (2007) ‘Has academic freedom survived? — An interview study of the conditions for researchers in an era of paradigmatic change’, Higher Education Quarterly 61 (3): 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berdahl, R. (1990) ‘Academic freedom, autonomy and accountability in British universities’, Studies in Higher Education 15 (2): 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bergan, S. (2009) ‘Higher Education “As a Public Good and Public Responsibility”: What Does it Mean?’, in S. Bergan, R. Guarga, E. Egron-Polak, J.D. Sobrinho, R. Tandon and J.B.G Tilak (eds.) Public Responsibility for Higher Education, Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  12. Berggren, H. (2012) ‘Den akademiska frågan — en ESO-rapport om frihet I den högre skolan’, En rapport till expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi (ESO): 3. Stockholm: Fritzes.Google Scholar
  13. Bladh, A. (2007) ‘Institutional autonomy with increasing dependency on outside actors’, Higher Education Policy 20 (3): 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bladh, A. (2012) ‘Nordic mergers — A way to strengthen universities in a competitive environment’, Leadership and Governance in Higher Education Handbook, 7th supplement to the Handbook. Berlin: Raabe Fachverlag für Wissenschaftsinformation.Google Scholar
  15. Bleiklie, I. (2005) ‘Academic Leadership and Emerging Knowledge Regimes’, in Bleiklie I. and M. Henkel (eds.) Governing Knowledge: A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bleiklie, I. (2009) ‘Norway: From Tortoise to Eager Beaver’, in C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie (eds.) University Governance: Western European Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cai, Y. and Kivistö, J. (2011) ‘Tuition fees for international students in Finland: Where to go from here?’ Journal of Studies in International Education 17 (1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Danø, T. and Stensaker, B. (2007) ‘Still balancing improvement and accountability? Developments in external quality assurance in the Nordic countries 1996–2006’, Quality in Higher Education 13 (1): 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Boer, H.F., Enders, J. and Leisyte, L. (2007) ‘Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university’, Public Administration 85 (1): 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Enders, J. and File, J. (2010) ‘Progress in Higher Education Reform across Europe: Governance Reform’, Report Commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission. Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  21. Denmark: Universitetslov. (2011) ‘University legislation in the Nordic countries’, https://www.retsinformation.dk/forms/r0710.aspx?id=137835, accessed 25 February 2012.
  22. Dobbins, M., Knill, C. and Vögtle, E. (2011) ‘An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance’, Higher Education 62 (5): 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Enders, J., de Boer, H. and Weyer, E. (2012) ‘Regulatory Autonomy and Performance: The Reform of Higher Education Re-Visited’, Paper Presented at the 25th Annual CHER Conference; 10–12 September, Belgrade, Serbia.Google Scholar
  24. Estermann, T., Nokkala, T. and Steinel, M. (2011) University Autonomy in Europe II: The Scorecard, Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  25. EUA. (2001) Salamanca Declaration. The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area, Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  26. Fägerlind, I. and Strömqvist, G. (2004) Reforming Higher Education in the Nordic Countries — Studies of Change in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, Paris: UNESCO and International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  27. Finland: Universities Act. (2009) ‘University legislation in the Nordic countries’, http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2009/en20090558.pdf, accessed 25 February 2012.
  28. Geschwind, L. and Melin, G. (2011) Linnéuniversitetets tillkomst. En studie av fusionsprocessen, Stockholm: Faugert & Company.Google Scholar
  29. Gornitzka, Å., Stensaker, B., Smeby, J.C. and de Boer, H. (2004) ‘Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries: Solving the efficiency/effectiveness dilemma’, Higher Education in Europe 29 (1): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gregersen, B. and Rasmussen, J.G. (2011) ‘Developing Universities: The Evolving Role of Academic Institutions in Denmark’, in B. Göransson and C. Brundenius (eds.) Universities in Transition, New York: Springer, pp. 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris, S. (2005) ‘Rethinking academic identities in neo-liberal times’, Teaching in Higher Education 10 (4): 421–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hedda. (2011) ‘Thematic week on tuition fees in Nordic countries’, Hedda blog, April, http://uv-net.uio.no/wpmu/hedda/, accessed 24 February 2012.
  33. IAU. (1998) Academic Freedom, University Autonomy and Social Responsibility, Paris: International Association of Universities.Google Scholar
  34. Iceland: The Higher Education Institution Act. (2006) ‘University legislation in the Nordic countries’, http://english.hi.is/rules_and_legislation/legislation_and_rules, accessed 25 February 2012.
  35. Jóhannsdóttir, G. and Jónasson, J.T. (2011) ‘What Characterises the Public-Private Distinction in HE in a Nordic Perspective?’, in P. Teixeira and D. Dill (eds.) Public Vices, Private Virtues? Assessing the Effects of Marketization in Higher Education, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jongbloed, B., de Boer, H., Enders, J. and File, J. (2010) ‘Progress in Higher Education Reform across Europe: Funding Reform’, Report Commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission, Brussels: EC.Google Scholar
  37. Kallerud, E. (2006) ‘Akademisk frihet: en oversikt over spörsmål dröftet i international litteratur’, NIFUSTEP Arbeidsnotat 18, Oslo: NIFUSTEP.Google Scholar
  38. Karran, T. (2009) ‘Academic freedom: In justification of a universal ideal’, Studies in Higher Education 34 (3): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kennedy, D. (1997) Academic Duty, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Magna Charta Universitatum. (1988) Bologna, 18 September, http://www.magna-charta.org/library/userfiles/file/mc_english.pdf, accessed 2 November 2012.
  41. Marton, S. (2000) ‘The mind of the state: The politics of university autonomy in Sweden 1968–1998’, Göteborg Studies in Politics 67, Göteborg: BAS.Google Scholar
  42. Merton, R. (1973) The Normative Structure of Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. (2009) The University Evaluation 2009. Evaluation Report, Copenhagen: The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.Google Scholar
  44. Musiał, K. (2010) ‘Redefining external stakeholders in Nordic higher education’, Tertiary Education and Management 16 (1): 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Neave, G. (2006) ‘On Time and Fragmentation: Sundry Observations on Research, the University and Politics from a Waveringly Historical Perspective’, in K. Blückert, G. Neave and T. Nybom (eds.) The European Research University: An Historical Parenthesis?, New York: Palgrave Macmillan and International Association of Universities, pp. 63–76.Google Scholar
  46. Nokkala, T., Tirronen, J. and Hölttä, S. (2007) ‘Konsortio, federaation ja yhdistyminen — kansainvälinen taustaselvitys korkeakoulujen yhteistyömuodoista’, Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä: 21, Helsinki: Opetusministeriö.Google Scholar
  47. Nokkala, T. (2012a) ‘Institutional Autonomy and the Attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area — Facts or Tokenistic Discourse?’, in A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu and L. Wilson (eds.) European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nokkala, T. (2012b) ‘University Autonomy, Agenda Setting and the Construction of Agency the Case of European University Association in the Bologna Process’, Paper Presented at 25th Annual CHER Conference; 10–12 September, Belgrade, Serbia.Google Scholar
  49. Norway: Act relating to universities and university colleges. (2005) ‘University legislation in the Nordic countries’, http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-20050401-015-eng.pdf, accessed 25 February 2012.
  50. Nybom, T. (2006) ‘Creative Intellectual Destruction or Destructive Political Creativity? Critical Reflections on the Future of European “Knowledge Production”’, in K. Blückert, G. Neave and T. Nybom (eds.) The European Research University: An Historical Parenthesis?, New York: Palgrave Macmillan and International Association of Universities, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
  51. OECD. (2012) Education at a Glance, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  52. Pekkola, E. and Kivistö, J. (2012) ‘Reforming the Finnish university system: Policies and institutional responses’, Leadership and Governance in Higher Education Handbook 2012 (1): 78–106.Google Scholar
  53. Ravinet, P. (2008) ‘From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process’, European Journal of Education 43 (3): 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Salmi, J. (2007) ‘Autonomy from the state vs responsiveness to markets’, Higher Education Policy 20 (3): 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Silventoinen, S. (2001) Näin sen näin, Helsinki: Suomen Ylioppilaskuntien Liitto.Google Scholar
  56. Slaughter, S. and Cantwell, B. (2012) ‘Transatlantic moves to the market: The United States and the European union’, Higher Education 63 (5): 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sweden: Higher Education Act. (2010) ‘University legislation in the Nordic countries’, http://hsv.se/lawsandregulations/theswedishhighereducationact.4.5161b99123700c42b07ffe3956.html, accessed 25 February 2012.
  58. Tieteentekijöiden liitto. (2009) ‘Joint statement by the Finnish union of university researchers and teachers and the Finnish union of university professors 16 June 2009’, http://www.tieteentekijoidenliitto.fi/modules/sgeditor/sgeditor_ download.aspx?P=&VID=default&SID= 312404421947265&S=1&action=handle_ download_link&fpath=&fname=YHT+tied+yolaki +160609.doc&C=60957, accessed 2 November 2012.Google Scholar
  59. Tirronen, J. and Nokkala, T. (2009) ‘Structural development of Finnish universities: Achieving competitiveness and academic excellence’, Higher Education Quarterly 63 (3): 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thorens, J. (2006) ‘Liberties, freedom and autonomy: A few reflections on academia's estate’, Higher Education Policy 19 (1): 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van Vught, F. (ed.) (1989) Governmental Strategies and Innovation in Higher education, London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  62. Veld, R.J., Füssel, H.P. and Neave, G. (eds.) (1996) Relations between State and Higher Education, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  63. Wright, S. and Ørberg, J.W. (2008) ‘Autonomy and control: Danish university reform in the context of modern governance’, Learning and Teaching 1 (2): 27–57.Google Scholar
  64. Zgaga, P. (2007) Higher Education in Transition: Reconsiderations on Higher Education in Europe at the Turn of the Millennium, Umeå: Umeå University.Google Scholar
  65. Zgaga, P. (2012) ‘Reconsidering University Autonomy and Governance: From Academic Freedom to Institutional Autonomy’, in H.G. Schuetze, W. Bruneau and G. Grosjean (eds.) University Governance and Reform. Policy, Fads, and Experience in International Perspective, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terhi Nokkala
    • 1
  • Agneta Bladh
    • 2
  1. 1.Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Agneta Bladh Evaluation AB Bruksstigen 7Saltsjö-BooSweden

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options