Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
SJPA Special Issue Introduction:
What Has Changed and What Remains?
Institutional Shifts in Nordic Higher Education in the 2000s
Mikko Poutanen, Tuomas Tervasmaki, Rómulo Pinheiro and Lars
Geschwind*
This is an Open Access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License allowing third parties to copy and disseminate the material for non-commercial purposes as long as
appropriate credit is given, a link is provided to the license, and any changes made are clearly indicated.
SJPA
27(1)
The theme of this special issue, changes in higher education (HE) in the
Nordics, might feel somewhat self-evident: by now, the adage from business,
“the only constant is change”, seems to encapsulate the reality of higher
education in the Nordics. As the movement from industrial welfare states to
post-industrial competition states progresses in the Nordics, public universities
are slowly but inexorably drawn into the sphere of national economic policy
(Poutanen, 2022) as modern “factories” of knowledge production. Starting in the
early 2000s, the salience of the knowledge economy paradigm meant that HE
institutions (HEIs) were designated as one of the primary engines of economic
growth and innovation. New stakeholders and new priorities have been added to
universities’ social mission (Pinheiro et al., 2019).
While structures of academic self-governance remain, and in this sense
Nordic universities have yet to match their Anglophone counterparts in terms of
internal and administrative reforms, special emphasis has been placed on
concentrating resources, leveraging competitive dynamics, and shifting from the
traditional model based on academic, collegial governance towards a more
professional and managerial orientation (Geschwind et al., 2019). As elsewhere,
Nordic universities are being called upon to compete globally in rankings as
well as for funding and prestige alike (Geschwind and Pinheiro, 2017).
Academics have been more ambiguous about these new priorities.
Collaboration, rather than competition, has served as a guiding principle of
academic work. At the micro level, however, academic career models are now
subject to increasing competitive pressures (Pietilä and Pinheiro, 2021). Nordic
academics are increasingly subject to extraneous metrics, that reflect an idea of a
dfs
*Mikko Pouta nen is a postdoctoral researcher at Tampere University, Finland. His research
interests include the political economy of higher education, political communication, ideology
theory and qualitative research methods. He is also the editor-in-chief of Politiikasta, a webjournal
that popularizes social science research.
Tuomas Tervasmäki is a doctoral researcher in the Faculty of Education and Culture at Tampere
University, Finland. Currently he is finalising his PhD dissertation in which he analyses politics of
education and ideological foundations of Finnish education policy from the perspective of political
discourse theory. Tervasmäki is also a member of Political sociologies and philosophies of education
(POISED) research group.
Rómulo Pinheiro is Professor of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Agder,
Norway, where is also Deputy Head of Department for Political Science and Management.
Rómulo’s research interests are located at the intersection of public policy and administration,
organisational theory, economic geography, innovation and higher education studies.
Lars Geschwind is Professor in Engineering Education Policy and Management, coordinator of the
research group HEOS (Higher Education Organization Studies) and Head of Division at Learning in
STEM at KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. His main research interests are
higher education policy, institutional governance, academic leadership and management and
academic work. He is currently involved in a number of projects focusing on change processes in
higher education institutions, including e.g. governance and steering, quality assurance, academic
careers and partnership with external stakeholder. Most studies include a comparative component
and a historical perspective.
CA: Mikko Poutanen,
Faculty of Management and
Business, Tampere
University, Finland
mikko.poutanen@tuni.fi
Tuomas Tervasmaki,
Faculty of Education and
Culture, Tampere University,
Finland
tuomas.tervasmaki@tuni.fi
Rómulo Pinheiro,
Department of Political
Science and Management
University of Agder, Norway
romulo.m.pinheiro@uia.no
Lars Geschwind,
School of Industrial
Engineering and
Management, KTH Royal
Insitute of Technology,
Sweden
larsges@kth.se
Scandinavian Journal of
Public Administration
Vol. 27 No. 1 (2023),
p. 1 – 7
https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.
v27i1.11341
© 2023 Mikko Poutanen,
Tuomas Tervasmaki, Rómulo
Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind
and School of Public
Administration,
e-ISSN: 2001-7413
Mikko Poutanen, Tuomas Tervasmaki, Rómulo Pinheiro and Lars Geschwind
2
return on investment for public expenses in HE (Kivistö et al., 2019). While
academics understand and accept accountability for their work, these
instrumental pressures often clash with academics’ notions of what the
university is and for whom it exists (Hansen et al., 2019). For some, this has
even led to a reimagining of the academic profession (Griffin, 2021), moving
away from a dominant ethos of performativity (Berg et al., 2022; Kallio et al.,
2021).
These changes have been preceded and followed by new legal requirements,
government-led reforms and policy instruments, which have aligned Nordic HE
systems with global and regional (European) best practices, whenever possible
(Gornitzka and Maassen, 2011; Pekkola et al., 2022). The primary aim of such
undertakings has been to foster efficiency, quality, accountability, and
responsiveness to a multiplicity of stakeholders. These developments were
underpinned by a hegemonic discourse, which argued that not changing would
not only be irresponsible, but detrimental to the future of Nordic HEIs, their HE
systems and the national economies to which they are tightly linked (Sørensen et
al., 2019). So, change they must, and change they have.
However, while change in some areas has been both fast and acute, in some
ways the core essence of Nordic HE remains the same. For example, although
many Nordic public HEIs (e.g. in Finland) are no longer state-run institutions,
their finances are still largely dependent on public funding allocations,
determined by HE policy tools and goals, and informed by a New Public
Management regime (Pinheiro et al., 2014). The change in the Nordics has
followed what some have called the 'neoliberalization of HE’ (Alajoutsijärvi et
al., 2021), and others ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2004; see
also Poutanen, 2023 in this issue), albeit with Nordic characteristics. This has
injected a particular strain of market-oriented logic into the Nordic context,
where market-logic is often reproduced through the proxy of the state (Gornitzka
et al., 2014; Wedlin, 2008). One could argue that the adoption of market-based
funding instruments, allows Nordic nation states to direct knowledge formation
while retaining control over national competitiveness. This way the state neither
risks ceding critical authority to uncontrolled market forces, nor leaves it in the
hands of the HEIs or academics, as was the case in the recent past (cf. Nokkala
and Bladh, 2014).
The effects of governmental reforms on HEIs vary nationally, depending on
local translations of transnational policy trends, institutional contexts, and the
willingness of academics to accept new policy ideas and incorporate them into
their professional logic, academic subjectivities, and everyday practices (cf.
Laterza et al., 2020, in the case of digital transformation). As such, discourses
emphasising change in Nordic HE should also be tempered with a recognition of
resilience within HEIs (Geschwind et al., 2022) and in the academic profession
(Cavalli and Moscati, 2010), where change and continuity co-exist in complex
ways. Change may be happening, but it is perhaps not as stark as is often first
assumed.
This special issue owes its genesis to a workshop held in August 2021 at the
Nordic Political Science Association’s conference. The workshop was originally
planned for 2020, but the COVID-19 outbreak first postponed it, and then forced
the conference online. The opportunity to discuss the variety in Nordic HE
SJPA Special Issue Introduction:
What Has Changed and What Remains? Institutional Shifts in Nordic Higher Education in the 2000s
3
policy and compare and contrast experiences was welcomed by many of our
colleagues. As campuses closed, academics looked for new avenues to network
and to discuss both new and old concepts and ideas. The workshop served as an
opportunity to intermingle across disciplinary lines and gain a new appreciation
for the uniqueness and complexity inherent to Nordic HE systems and the
academic profession.
In the Nordics, the legacy of HE has been closely connected with the welfare
state. This means that researching public HEIs is not only an issue of public
administration, but as both subjects and objects of HE policy, HEIs are
becoming increasingly political entities. Surrounded by a rapidly changing and
increasingly turbulent societal (political, economic, cultural, etc.) context, HEIs
and the domestic HE systems in which they are embedded are undergoing
substantial structural changes or reorganisations, with academics struggling to
navigate among a range of subjectivities and multiple organisational tensions
(Poutanen et al., 2021; Kallio et al., 2020).
As such, the workshop evolved into a living discussion amongst Nordic
participants, which sparked the idea of continuing to work together in the form
of a special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration. Our
primary aim was to expand on the workshop themes and, hopefully, to better
capture, what, indeed, had changed, and what remains the same – by shedding
light on the elements of change and continuity that can be found in Nordic HE
policy (macro level), HEIs (meso), and academic work (micro).
In this special issue, four individual articles approach change and continuity
in Nordic HE policy from different angles. Two of the articles explore ideational
change in HE policies, outlining bold reforms of the national systems of
Denmark and Finland. The studies make visible a longer view of continuity and
change in domestic HE in the period from 2000 to 2020. The other two articles
focus on the dynamic and complex interplay between institutional and academic
ideals, as well as the importance associated with embracing complexity and
reflexivity. These perspectives reflect the dynamics of collaboration and
competition in academic practices, which may appear conflicting but often result
in paradoxical tensions that, if handled properly or embraced, are likely to be
negotiated or addressed in a constructive manner.
1. Katja Brøgger, Lise Degn, and Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen describe
how the ideals of institutional autonomy for universities in the Nordics
have changed over the years. Their investigation shows that while
powerful policy ideas have indeed shaped the development of Danish HE
policy, they have not been received in a uniform manner throughout the
system. Rather, idea implementation or adaptation was found to unfold
around two parallel policy developments – the first revolves around the
relationship between the state and universities, and the second on the
interplay between national and global dimensions. As such, responses to
top-down and centrally administered reforms were found to vary
significantly as Danish universities play an active role in renegotiating
their societal functions.
Mikko Poutanen, Tuomas Tervasmaki, Rómulo Pinheiro and Lars Geschwind
4
2. Mikko Poutanen argues that the shift in HE policy in Finland has been
marked by new demands of competitiveness that have been placed on
universities. In other words, as survival in the global competition of
knowledge-based economies is considered paramount, Finnish HE policy
guidance has sought to reform research via qualitative changes rather than
by committing to increasing investments. These developments draw on
public policy guidance leveraging a particular Finnish strain of academic
capitalism. Finnish HE policy emphasizes a relatively competition-driven
funding system through policy tools, such as performance-based funding.
While all domestic political parties have assured their commitment to
supporting the universities, the Finnish system also features a relatively
high susceptibility to political control, which can be seen as a challenge to
substantive academic autonomy. Indeed, research, development and
innovation policy may fall victim to changes in political fortunes, resulting
in cutbacks in university funding.
3. Rómulo Pinheiro and Kirsi Pulkkinen deploy paradox theory to
reconceptualize the relationship between competition and co-operation in
Nordic HE. Building on data from Norway and Finland, their analysis not
only shows that an interplay of competition and co-operation is strongly
present in the form of multiple contradictory tensions but also that these
tensions push further developments in the academic profession and the HE
systems in which they are embedded. Collaboration and competition are
not two conflicting binaries – rather, they are integrated dynamics of the
changing nature of the academic profession, which may influence and feed
off one another.
4. Anna Jonsson, Eugenia Perez Vico, and Diamanto Politis analyse
collaboration between academia and society – a key priority for many
HEIs in Sweden. Societal collaboration, too, has been assumed under the
rubric of innovation and competitiveness, driven as a matter of public
policy, and reflected in policy documents. However, their study shows that
“imposing” collaboration (top-down approach) tends to work poorly, and
such strategic guidance often falls short in the face of scepticism. The
result is a mismatch between strategic goals and everyday work – a
disconnect between theory and practice. The authors use their own auto-
ethnographic experiences to explain how organising efforts for
collaboration require the integral alignment of strategy and practice to
facilitate the bottom-up adoption of collaborative praxis.
Moving forward, we urge colleagues across the Nordic countries and beyond
to continue shedding light on the different mechanisms underpinning change and
continuity in contemporary Nordic HE systems, including the institutional and
academic settings in which teaching, research, innovation, and engagement tasks
unfold in dynamic and sometimes contradictory ways. We also welcome the
return of the political dimension into analyses on how HEIs are governed
externally – typically by their national ministries of education – and internally by
new operational logics or even new administrative systems. Our hope is that this
SJPA Special Issue Introduction:
What Has Changed and What Remains? Institutional Shifts in Nordic Higher Education in the 2000s
5
special issue will stimulate many more discussions around this important topic in
the years to come, not only for students of HE systems but also scholars of
public administration and public policy more generally.
Acknowledgements
The guest editors would like to express our sincere thanks to the participants of
the panel on Nordic HE held at the 2021 Nordic Political Science Congress
(NOPSA). That panel led to the development of this Special Issue. We also
extend our thanks to the dozen or so anonymous peers who provided critical
input at different stages of the publication process. Finally, we are grateful to
Professor Vicki Johansson, Chief Journal Editor, and her team for their valuable
editorial support. Any remaining errors are the responsibility of the authors
and/or guest editors.
References
Alajoutsijärvi, Kimmo, Ilan Alon & Rómulo Pinheiro (2021) ‘The Marketisation
of Higher Education: Antecedents, Processes, and Outcomes’ in John D.
Branch & Bryan Christiansen (eds), The Marketisation of Higher Education:
Concepts, Cases, and Criticisms (pp. 17–45), Springer International
Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67441-0_2
Berg, Laila Nordstrand, Aleksandar Avramović, Lars Geschwind, Elias Pekkola
& Rómulo Pinheiro (2022) At the top of the pyramid, everyone is above
average: Self-efficacy and perceived performance of senior academics in the
Nordic countries, Higher Education Forum, 19: 175–195,
http://doi.org/10.15027/52121
Cavalli, Alessandro, & Roberto Moscati (2010) Academic systems and
professional conditions in five European countries, European Review, 18
(S1): S35–S53.
Geschwind, Lars & Rómulo Pinheiro (2017) Raising the summit or flattening the
agora? The elitist turn in science policy in Northern Europe, Journal of
Baltic Studies, 48 (4): 513–528, http://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798709990305
Geschwind, Lars, Timo Aarrevaara, Laila Nordstrand Berg & Jonas Krog Lind
(2019) ‘The Changing Roles of Academic Leaders: Decision-Making,
Power, and Performance’ in Rómulo Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind, Hanne Foss
Hansen & Kirsi Pulkkinen (eds), Reforms, Organizational Change and
Performance in Higher Education (pp. 181–210), Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2_6
Geschwind, Lars, Rómulo Pinheiro & Bjørn Stensaker (2022) ‘Organizational
Persistence in Highly Institutionalized Environments: Unpacking the
Relation Between Identity and Resilience’ in Rómulo Pinheiro, Maria Laura
Frigotto & Mitchell Young (eds), Towards Resilient Organizations and
Societies: A Cross-Sectoral and Multi-Disciplinary Perspective (pp. 195–
221), Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-82072-5_8
Gornitzka, Åse & Peter Maassen (2011) ‘University Governance Reforms,
Global Scripts and the “Nordic Model.” Accounting for Policy Change?’ in
Mikko Poutanen, Tuomas Tervasmaki, Rómulo Pinheiro and Lars Geschwind
6
Josef Schmid, Karin Amos, Josef Scharder & Ansgar Thiel (eds), Welten der
Bildung? Vergleichende Analysen von Bildungspolitik und
Bildungssystemen (pp. 149–177), Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden,
https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845234076-149
Gornitzka, Åse, Bjørn Stensaker, Jens-Christian Smeby & Harry De Boer (2004)
Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries: Solving the efficiency-
effectiveness dilemma? Higher Education in Europe, 29 (1): 87–101,
https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720410001673319
Hansen, Hanne Foss, Lars Geschwind, Jussi Kivistö, Elias Pekkola, Rómulo
Pinheiro & Kirsi Pulkkinen (2019) Balancing accountability and trust:
University reforms in the Nordic countries, Higher Education, 78 (3): 557–
573, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-0358-2
Kallio, Tomi J., Kirsi-Mari Kallio & Annika Blomberg (2020) From professional
bureaucracy to competitive bureaucracy—redefining universities’
organizational principles, performance measurement criteria, and reason for
being, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 17 (1): 82–
108, https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-10-2019-0111
Kallio, Kirsi-Mari, Tomi J. Kallio, Giuseppe Grossi & Janne Engblom (2021)
Institutional logic and scholars’ reactions to performance measurement in
universities, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34 (9): 135–
161, https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3400
Kivistö, Jussi, Elias Pekkola, Berg, Laila Nordstrand, Hanne Foss Hansen, Lars
Geschwind & Anu Lyytinen (2019) ‘Performance in Higher Education
Institutions and Its Variations in Nordic Policy’ in Rómulo Pinheiro, Lars
Geschwind, Hanne Foss Hansen & Kirsi Pulkkinen (eds), Reforms,
Organizational Change and Performance in Higher Education (pp. 37–67),
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11738-2_2
Laterza, Vito, Catherine Edelhard Tømte & Rómulo Pinheiro (2020) Digital
transformations with “Nordic characteristics”? Latest trends in the
digitalisation of teaching and learning in Nordic higher education, Nordic
Journal of Digital Literacy, 15 (4): 225–233,
https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-943x-2020-04-01
Nokkala, Terhi & Agneta Bladh (2014) Institutional autonomy and academic
freedom in the Nordic context—similarities and differences, Higher
Education Policy, 27 (1): 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.8
Pekkola, Elias, Rómulo Pinheiro, Lars Geschwind, Taru Siekkinen, Kirsi
Pulkkinen & Teresa Carvalho (2022) Hybridity in Nordic Higher education,
International Journal of Public Administration, 45 (2): 171–184,
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2012190
Pietilä, Maria, & Rómulo Pinheiro (2021) Reaching for different ends through
tenure track—institutional logics in university career systems, Higher
Education, 81 (6): 1197–1213, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00606-2
Pinheiro, Rómulo, Lars Geschwind & Timo Aarrevaara (2014) Nested tensions
and interwoven dilemmas in higher education: The view from the Nordic
countries, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 7 (2): 233–
250, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu002
SJPA Special Issue Introduction:
What Has Changed and What Remains? Institutional Shifts in Nordic Higher Education in the 2000s
7
Pinheiro, Rómulo, Lars Geschwind, Hanne Foss Hansen & Kirsi Pulkkinen
(2019) Reforms, Organizational Change and Performance in Higher
Education: A Comparative Account from the Nordic Countries, Palgrave,
Cham.
Poutanen, Mikko (2022) Competitive knowledge-economies driving new logics
in higher education—reflections from a Finnish university merger, Critical
Policy Studies (online first),
https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2124429
Poutanen, Mikko, Tuomas Tervasmäki & Auli Harju (2021) Katse sisäänpäin:
Yliopisto-reformin organisatoriset jännitteet koti-etnografian silmin
(Looking inward: The organizational tensions of a university reform through
a home-ethnograpihical approach), Tiede & Edistys, 46 (1–2): 28–46,
https://doi.org/10.51809/te.109599
Slaughter, Sheila & Gary Rhoades (2004) Academic Capitalism and the New
Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education, Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore, N.J.
Sørensen, Mads P., Lars Geschwind, Jouni Kekäle & Rómulo Pinheiro (2019)
The Responsible University: Exploring the Nordic Context and Beyond,
Springer Nature, Cham.
Wedlin, Linda (2008) ‘University Marketization: The Process and Its Limits’ in
Lars Engwall & Denis Weaire (eds), The University in the Market (pp. 143–
153), Portland Press, London.
