Takeovers in Swedish Higher Education: Comparing the “Hostile” and the “Friendly”

  • Sara KarlssonEmail author
  • Lars Geschwind
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 46)


Among the recent mergers in Swedish higher education, two have been takeovers, where the smaller party has been fully integrated into the larger party. These are, firstly, the takeover of Stockholm Institute of Education by Stockholm University in 2008 and, secondly, the takeover of Gotland University College by Uppsala University in 2013. Our comparative analysis of the two mergers shows that the main drivers and rationales, as well as the implementation, differ substantially. Whereas the former was a conflict-ridden process driven by a national political agenda and ideological disagreement on quality, the latter was a more proactive, reciprocal process driven principally by financial and personal motives at the institutional level. As such, the processes can be labelled “hostile” and “friendly”, respectively. Beyond this categorisation, however, the cases are found to carry more complexity. Depending on how “success” is defined, both processes have had some positive short- and mid-term effects. This partly contradicts previous studies identifying e.g. lengthy consolidation phases and cultural compatibility as success factors. Both cases point to the role of the state and the importance of the political context.


High Education Institution Implementation Process Teacher Training Success Factor National Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aula, H.-M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming “world-class”? Reputation-building in a university merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cai, Y. (2006). A case study of academic staff integration in a post-merger Chinese university. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(3), 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christensen, S. H., & Erno-Kjolhede, E. (2011). Academic drift in Danish professional engineering education. Myth or reality? Opportunity or threat? European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(3), 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. Curri, G. (2002). Reality versus perception: Restructuring tertiary education and institutional organisational change: A case study. Higher Education, 44(1), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ekholm, L. (2008). Ett stycke svensk utbildningshistoria? Utvärdering av samgåendet mellan Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm och Stockholms universitet. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  7. Finansdepartementet. (2013). Proposition 2013/14:1 Utgiftsområde 16: Utbildning och universitetsforskning, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  8. Gamage, D. T. (1992). Recent reforms in Australian higher education with particular reference to institutional amalgamations. Higher Education, 24(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen, H. F. (2012). Fusionsprocesserne. Frivillighed under tvang? In Dansk forskningspolitik efter årtusindskiftet. Aarhus: Aarhus universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  10. Harman, G., & Harman, K. (2003). Institutional mergers in higher education: Lessons from international experience. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harman, K., & Meek, V. L. (2002). Introduction to special issue: “Merger revisited: international perspectives on mergers in higher education.”. Higher Education, 44(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harman, K., & Meek, V. L. (2008). Strategic mergers of strong institutions to enhance competitive advantage. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harwood, J. (2010). Understanding academic drift: On the institutional dynamics of higher technical and professional education. Minerva, 48(4), 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kyvik, S. (2002). The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. Higher Education, 44(1), 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Mergers in Norwegian higher education. In R. Pinheiro, L. Geschwind, & T. Aarrevaara (Eds.), Mergers in higher education: The experience from Northern Europe (pp. 29–42). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. McGinnis, R. A., McMillen, W., & Gold, J. P. (2007). Merging two universities: The Medical University of Ohio and the University of Toledo. Academic Medicine, 82(12), 1187–1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Melin, G., Fridholm, T., & Ärenman, E. (2013). Erfarenheter av lärosätesfusioner i Sverige och Danmark, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  18. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., & Aarrevaara, T. (2013). Mergers in higher education: What do we know and what are we lacking? In EAIR annual conference, Rotterdam: EAIR.Google Scholar
  20. Pritchard, R. M. O., & Williamson, A. (2007). Long-term human outcomes of a “shotgun” marriage in higher education. Anatomy of a merger, two decades later. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rowley, G. (1997). Strategic alliances: United we stand: A strategic analysis of mergers in higher education. Public Money and Management, 17(4), 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sandström, B., et al. (2006). Utredning angående förutsättningarna för ett samgående mellan Lärarhögskolan och Stockholms universitet, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  23. UK-ämbetet. (2013). Higher education in Sweden 2013 status report. Report 2013:3, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  24. Uppsala University and University College Gotland. (2011). Avsiktsförklaring Uppsala universitet och Högskolan på Gotland, UFV 2011/1998, A13–2011/713. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  25. Uppsala University. (2013). Goals and strategies for campus Gotland 2013–2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Learning, School of Education and Communication in Engineering ScienceKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations