Content uploaded by Valgerður Bjarnadóttir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Valgerður Bjarnadóttir on Oct 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Academics’ dilemmas in addressing challenging societal issues in today’s
higher education landscape
Valgerður S. Bjarnadóttir,a* Guðrún Geirsdóttira and Anna Ólafsdóttirb
aSchool of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland; b School of Humanities and
Social Sciences, University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland
* vsb@hi.is ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2506-8111
Valgerður S Bjarnadóttir is an assistant professor at the School of Education, University of Iceland.
Guðrún Geirsdóttir is an associate profsessor at the School of Education, University of Iceland
Anna Ólafsdóttir is an associate professor at the school of humanities and social sciences, University
of Akureyri.
This is the Author‘s Manuscript (post-print) version of the paper.
The final version of record of this manuscript has been published and is available in
Globalisation, Societies and Education, September 2024,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14767724.2024.2405534?src=exp-la
2
Academics’ dilemmas in addressing challenging societal issues in today’s
higher education landscape
The critical role of universities in addressing societal issues is considered particularly
important nowadays, when our futures are being threatened by various forces. Given
this context, this study aimed to gain an understanding of academics’ perceptions of
their role in engaging with ongoing societal challenges. Semi-structured interviews
were conducted with 26 academics, 14 female and 12 males, from three universities in
Iceland. The findings revealed that academics see the university as a critical player in
responding to societal challenges, yet their reflections underscore the complexities and
tensions that this role entails. These include persistent tensions related to knowledge
hierarchies and criticality, as well as complexities related to competition and the
marketisation of research.
Keywords: higher education; societal challenges; qualitative research; public good; knowledge
production
3
Introduction
As public institutions, universities play an important role in society (Hazelkorn and Gibson
2018; Jónasson 2011). Although universities’ roles may vary geopolitically and temporally,
universities can be normatively assumed to be trustworthy sources of knowledge, as they are
expected to address false and misleading information, inform the public, hold authorities
accountable and make themselves heard on critical issues. These core activities have a long-
standing history. They reflect Humboldt’s early-nineteenth-century reinvention of the
university and Kerr’s vision for the university (Kerr 1963). Thus, the idea that universities
play a role in the development of a better society is an enduring one. This role is entangled
with three essential tasks that are generally identified as universities’ purpose: teach, research
and serve society (Skúlason 2015).
Developing along this vein, scholars have argued that universities play a crucial role in
addressing contemporary societal and ecological challenges responsibly and transnationally
(Biesta 2009; Nussbaum 2002). Although the degree to which this role is expected can vary
based on context, it presents a common normative vision of a university that strives to
contribute to a better world, in the present and for future generations. In light of the various
economic, political and environmental forces that are increasingly impacting our lives and
futures, this role of universities is considered particularly important nowadays (Gallagher
2018; Solbrekke and Sugrue, 2020), manifesting in global agreements and policy documents.
Recently, UNESCO (2021) published a report that strongly argues for the critical role of
higher education, not least in relation to human rights, cooperation and solidarity, to transform
the world. Additionally, the Magna Carta Universitatum, which was originally signed by
hundreds of heads of universities around Europe and beyond in 1988 but updated in 2020,
recognises the responsibility of universities to ‘engage with and respond to the aspirations and
challenges of the world and to the communities they serve, to benefit humanity and contribute
to sustainability’ (Magna Carta Universitatum 2020).
4
However, the global transformation of higher education in conjunction with market
forces and an increasingly competitive higher education environment have affected
knowledge production and research agendas (e.g. Boden and Epstein 2006; Giroux 2014;
Soler, Erdocia and Savski 2023; White 2017). These external pressures have implications for
the work of scholars and universities who seek to make themselves heard on societal and
critical issues (e.g. environmental, social and political). Moreover, these pressures interact
with tensions between the political role of universities and the imperative to uphold
objectivity and trustworthiness.
In this environment, Iceland presents an interesting and relevant context for this study.
Iceland is a small nation-state with rather open channels between political authorities and
academia. The history of university institutions is short, with the first university founded in
1911. Nevertheless, the higher education system has developed in similar ways as in larger
nation-states. This includes increased growth and massification of university education,
adaptation to the Bologna system and a strong emphasis on the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) in the policies of higher education institutions (Bjarnadóttir, Ólafsdóttir and
Geirsdóttir 2019). Additionally, there is an emphasis on international (particularly European)
indicators of efficiency, achievement and quality (Ólafsdóttir and Jónasson 2017). Given this
contextual background, Iceland presents an interesting case for research into higher education
developments in Europe in general, as well as in the context of various more specific issues
regarding the role of universities in society in challenging times.
The research question that guided our study was: What is academics’ understanding of
the role of universities in responding to contemporary societal challenges, and what obstacles
do they experience in carrying out this role in today’s higher education landscape? The study
sheds light on academics’ perspectives in the context of normative ideas and discourses about
universities by drawing on interviews with 26 experienced academics from three different
5
universities in Iceland. The findings of this study constitute an important contribution to the
field of higher education studies and will help build a better understanding of the interactions
between the normative and practical functions of universities situated in international
contexts.
We begin by discussing normative visions of the general purpose of the university and
its political role before addressing some of the challenges academics face within higher
education today.
The (Political) Role of the University
As a point of departure, we draw on the work of Skúlason (2015), who argued that the overall
purpose of higher education is to study and understand the world and in that way become part
of it and contribute to its responsible development. According to Skúlason (2015), not only
does one need scientific and practical knowledge but also ethical ‘wisdom’ to ensure that
knowledge is used for good:
We will be facing environmental and social issues that call for a combined application of
a theoretical, technological, and ethical wisdom that we have not developed so far. And
universities are the only institutions that have in themselves the spiritual and intellectual
power to develop such wisdom for the good of humankind (Skúlason 2015, 8).
Several scholars have similarly argued that universities play a fundamental role in
contributing to a better world (e.g. Bosio 2019; Connell 2019; Gallagher 2018; Giroux 2015;
White 2017). It is useful here to revisit Arendt’s (2006/1958) thesis on truth and politics. Her
work reminds us that the university is a pivotal societal institution, as it is one of the few
institutions funded by authorities and required to embrace and seek truth, even if the results
might be unwelcome:
6
[I[t can hardly be denied that, at least in constitutionally ruled countries, the political realm has
recognized, even in the event of conflict, that it has a stake in the existence of men and
institutions over which it has no power. (Arendt 2006/1958, 256)
Arendt, as well as several other scholars (e.g. Giroux 2015), highlighted the unique position
of public universities, as they are funded by the very same authorities that, at least in theory,
depend on them to deliver inconvenient and troubling messages without the latter’s
interference. It is worth noting that Icelandic academics were sharply criticised for being
caught off guard and for not speaking up about the unhealthy financial situation in the prelude
to the great recession that hit Iceland in 2008. For example, Árnason (2014) argued for the
crucial civic obligation of academic scholars (e.g. to take action when there is a need to
correct false or misleading information in their area of expertise). Jónasson (2011) similarly
insisted that instead of the freedom of speech, the emphasis should be on academics’
obligation of speech. Thus, the financial crisis of 2008 brought forward discussions about the
critical role of academics and the importance of their remaining free from external political
and financial influence.
While the university is in itself a political institution (White 2017), those who try to
diminish the messages of academics accuse them of subjectively being involved in politics or
having a political agenda. Here, it is essential to distinguish between institutional politics and
critical thought—or a thin and thick understanding of politics (Árnason 2022). Drawing on
Árnason (2014), the former understanding refers to the use of academic power to promote
political parties or particular ideologies that serve narrow interests, while the latter applies to
the political dimensions of our societies, including concerns regarding the common good and
the role of foundational institutions. This aligns well with the Magna Carta Universitatum
(2020), but the first principle of the agreement is that ‘research and teaching must be
intellectually and morally independent of all political influence and economic interests’.
7
Some Challenges to the Political Role of Universities
While few seem to argue against the important role of universities in delivering critical
messages and keeping authorities accountable, several complexities are associated with this
political role. The ones we highlight here are issues related to epistemological hierarchies and
the marketisation of research.
Within universities, some disciplines and research traditions enjoy a higher status than
others (Becher and Trowler 2001; Bleiklie 2005). These hierarchies become particularly
visible when attempts are made to disturb or challenge them (Ylijoki 2022) and are strongly
connected to the identity and work of university professors (Fanghanel 2012. The
categorisation of disciplines as ‘soft’ or ‘hard’ (Becher and Trowler 2001), which strongly
relates to how some science fields or disciplines are perceived in terms of their objectivity and
political relations, deeply mirrors epistemological hierarchies. Research within some fields
and contexts is perceived as more significant than others, which is important to acknowledge
in relation to universities’ role in addressing various societal challenges from different
experiences and perspectives. Marginson and Xu (2022) argued that while knowledge
creation is supposed to build knowledge, it also sustains systems of power, as the
globalisation of higher education has mostly failed to foster cultural and epistemological
diversity and recognition of different knowledges (see also Regmi 2023). Drawing on Boden
and Epstein (2006), what counts as research knowledge is somewhat decided by globalised
standards, which possibly impact ‘research imagination’.
The term ‘knowledge democracy’ is useful in this context. Following Hall’s (2018)
framing of the concept, it refers to the acknowledgement of the existence of multiple
epistemologies, in which the knowledge and experiences of previously marginalised groups
are accepted as real knowledge, and different forms of knowledge, research traditions and
epistemologies are also acknowledged. Thus, a knowledge democracy broadens perspectives,
8
deepens knowledge and is more inclusive, blazing a path to a deeper understanding of various
societal challenges and the ways in which they can be addressed and dealt with in different
contexts, both in a narrow sense, such as within individual communities, and in wider,
international contexts. Citing Hall and Tandon (2017), ‘fundamental to our thinking about
knowledge democracy, is understanding that knowledge is a powerful tool for acting in social
movements and elsewhere to deepen democracy and to fight for a fairer and healthier world’
(p. 13). Along these lines, the Futures of Education Initiative by UNESCO (2021) addresses
the importance of avoiding the marginalisation of knowledge to deal with future challenges.
The hierarchy of knowledge has ties to the emphasis on market principles within the
university setting. Ward (2012) highlighted the problem of preconditioning funding for
research with efficiency indicators because these mechanisms maintain the hierarchy of
knowledge fields. Some fields are considered more valuable than others, particularly those
with market value, and research in fields such as the humanities and sociology are seen as
having less value (see also Nussbaum 2010), as reflected in the relatively low proportion of
research funding allocated to these fields in both Europe and the USA (Slaughter and
Cantwell 2012). Therefore, it becomes financially beneficial for universities to emphasise
teaching and research in fields that have strong ties with the international knowledge
economy, as funding for research within these fields is easier to obtain. Therefore, the
marketisation of knowledge, in terms of publications and competitive funding (Marginson
2018; Wihlborg 2019), needs consideration in the context of this study, as explored further
below.
For instance, Hazelkorn and Gibson (2017) pointed out that competitiveness and
university reputation building are at the centre of the internationalised higher education sector.
As a result, university branding has become more important. Collini (2012, 134) drew
attention to how this ‘misleading analogy between a university and a commercial company’
9
has created confusion among scholars as to what universities are and what they are for. That
can very well result in tensions between the visions of academic work and autonomy within
academic institutions.
Additionally, commercial trends are increasingly impacting research and the allocation
of research funding. The commercialisation of universities in a globally competitive education
environment (Robertson 2010) has directed discourse towards seeing scientific achievements
more as opportunities to create advantage in a competitive world rather than as a means to
serve the public good (Münch and Schäfer 2014). Fanghanel (2012, 88), citing Lucas (2006)
and Marginson (2007), claimed that within this competitive context, universities have resorted
to mercilessly finding ways and strategies to ‘harness the research game’, applying increasing
pressure on academics. Further, Soler at al. (2023) argue how this development is supported
and reproduced by key actors within our competitive, neoliberal academia, such as within
academic publishing and conference organisers, affecting critical scholars that struggle to find
ways to navigate within the ideology that they want to challenge. In fact, Niemczyk and
Rónay’s (2023) study showed how this globally competitive environment can limit
researchers’ autonomy, as researchers’ pursuit of funding and desire to meet research
requirements create what they call opportunity-driven decisions in relation to research and
financial resources.
These trends can be seen in the European higher education domain and elsewhere
(Beach and Puaca 2014). Lorenz (2012) argued that the Bologna process is an important part
of the development towards market principles. This development has raised concerns among
several scholars. For example, Naidoo (2018) described higher education as being trapped in
thinking about competition as a kind of magic that can solve all unsolved problems. Referring
to what she described as the ‘unintended consequences of competition’ in relation to academic
work, Naidoo (2018) pointed out that ‘[t]he various competition frameworks engage those
10
working in [higher education] in a struggle to define its very worth’ (612). Furthermore, she
argued that the competitive landscape ‘threatens the capacity of HE to work towards global
well-being’ (613).
In this globalised and marketised university environment, universities and individuals
working within them are part of an increasingly competitive and complex system. This
situation presses universities, not least in small non-English-speaking states such as Iceland,
to seek international collaboration and research. This development has its positive aspects.
Not only are universities in many countries deeply engaged in international communication
and the sharing of ideas and knowledge, they are perhaps the most fundamental institutions
engaged in developing an understanding of the global challenges we share. As Schofer,
Francisco and Meyer (2020) pointed out, there are international orientations and interactions
that have made it easier to work collectively across nations, and academics routinely work
collaboratively on large-scale matters that reach beyond nation-states, such as issues centred
on equality, the environment and human rights. This has opened channels for stronger
collaboration, allowing knowledge and ideas on shared challenges and issues to flow. Such
global collaboration was evident during the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020. The
active engagement by universities in health-related research, science communication to the
public, and strong university-government partnership during the pandemic highlighted the
role of universities in dealing with global challenges and the need to address the peripheral
status of that role within institutions (Christofoletti and Pinhero 2023).
In providing an overview of the normative visions of the general purpose of the
university and its political role, we have pinpointed some of the challenges academics face
within today’s society. To reiterate, the research question that guided our study asked about
academics’ understanding of the role of universities in responding to contemporary societal
11
challenges and their experiences of obstacles in performing this role in today’s higher
education landscape. Before reporting the findings, the study methodology is explained.
Data and Methods
This article presents an analysis of semi-structured interviews with 26 academics, 14 female
and 12 male, from three universities in Iceland. The three universities and two analogous
fields of study were chosen to include different realities and contexts existing within the
higher education system in Iceland while minimising the complexity of the sample. The
selected universities were the three largest universities in Iceland that each consist of several
schools, and the structure and emphasis of different departments and programmes within them
varied. Even so, all the universities included schools that offered programmes in the social
sciences (S), as well as the natural sciences, engineering and technology (N). First, a list of all
tenured academics within the two schools was obtained. Five participants were then randomly
selected from each programme within each school, resulting in 30 participants. The selected
academics were contacted and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. In
some cases, individuals opted out, and another individual was randomly selected from the list
and contacted. A total of 26 academics agreed to participate in the study (see table 1 below).
By selecting only tenured academics, we wanted to make sure that our interviewees had at
least five years of experience working within the academia. In fact, while one participant had
been in academia for 5 years, others had extensive experience with the average career in
academia spanning 15 years. Additionally, all of the participants also had been part-time
teachers before gaining full academic position. Furthermore, the participants’ academic
ranking is equally distributed from assistant professors to full professor positions.
Table 1: Overview of participants.
[Table 1 here]
12
The interviews were conducted in December, January and February during the school
year 2019–2020. They lasted from 1 hour to nearly 2 hours each. The focus of the interviews
was the perceptions, visions and experiences of the participants, particularly the role of higher
education with regard to challenging times and future directions. We purposely did not
identify what the current societal challenges were, as we wanted the discussion to focus on the
issues in broader terms and allow for personal interpretation. All three authors conducted the
interviews, most often in pairs, adhering to an interview guide jointly discussed and
developed. Most of the questions were open, and threads were followed with probing
questions (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015). As the researchers hold positions in two of the
institutions in question, arrangements were made regarding who conducted the interviews to
avoid conflict of interest.
The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The excerpts were translated
from the Icelandic originals to English by the authors and checked by a bilingual proofreader
to minimize the risk of anything getting lost in translation. The study followed the ethical
guidelines set by the University of Iceland Research Ethics Committee (2014), and a request
for a formal review sent to the Committee received a positive review. Before the participants
gave their written consent, they were informed of the aim of the research, that they could
withdraw from the study at any time and that their anonymity would be protected.
The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s (2021) phases of thematic analysis. This
process involved listening to the audio files and adding remarks to the transcribed files before
beginning the initial analysis. Then the interviews were read carefully, and familiarisation
notes for each were written before the complete data set was coded using selective coding
grounded in the research questions and by going back and forth between the data and
theoretical ideas. During the coding process, the interviews were read a few times while codes
were developed, and patterns were identified across the data. The initial steps were completed
13
separately by all the authors, but later in the coding process, the analysis was done
collectively to enhance reflexivity and challenge each other’s interpretations where needed.
The analysis followed what Braun and Clarke (2013, 178) called a ‘top–down’
approach, meaning that the analysis was interpretative, as it aimed to explore assumptions and
meanings by identifying patterns in the participants’ words that could reflect constructions of
dominant understandings of the role of universities and academics in responding to
contemporary societal challenges and what obstacles they experience in performing this role
in today’s higher education landscape. The analysis did not reveal specific findings based on
schools or gender, but in some instances, findings based on the field of study were revealed.
Therefore, for contextual purposes, we identified the interviewees by their fields of study:
social sciences (S) or natural sciences, engineering and technology (N).
Findings and Discussion
Analysis of the data generated three candidate themes, which are presented and discussed in
the following paragraphs. The first section presents the academics’ dominant perceptions of
the role of universities in addressing important societal issues. The associated complexities
are presented in the following two sections. The second section presents cases of tensions
related to finding balance between being critical and political, while the third section draws on
intricacies related to the competition and marketisation of research.
A critical anchor
In general, the interviewees expressed the view that universities and academics should exert
influence and try to impact society, as well as be even more active and louder than they
already perceived they were to prove the necessary knowledge that the university is capable
of to contribute to a more balanced discussion. This was a common pattern found in the
expressions of interviewees across disciplines. Below is an example that illustrates this view:
14
I think, if something, then the importance [of the university] is growing. Let’s take as an
example what is happening in the United States, Trump and Brexit in the UK. The university
must step in somehow . . . and bring in the points of view of those who have something to add
to the discussion, I think, because . . . the discussion is often so biased and is often somewhat
built on some marginal perspectives, where the university could perhaps come in with a more
balanced discussion instead of radical views in either directions. (N)
Similarly, another academic stressed that the present was a critical moment for the university,
not just in Iceland, but in the world:
[I]f we think outside of Iceland as well and even here in Iceland, there is so much going on
that is in fact dreadfully terrifying—not only environmental issues, but also the political
retrogression that has been the case in many places . . . and I think that universities must enter
with a strong voice, a response against that development. (N)
In these examples, the interviewees made connections with the world outside of Iceland,
reflecting the vision of a globalised world in which things are interconnected and relational. It
is clear from their accounts that they saw their work in a transnational context. Here, drawing
on Schofer, Francisco and Meyer (2020), the importance of international collaboration and the
flow of ideas across nation-states is crystallised. Moreover, the academics’ accounts reflect
the writings of Biesta (2009), Nussbaum (2002) and Skúlason (2015), all of whom
emphasised and advocated for the crucial role universities play in addressing contemporary
environmental and social challenges in a transnational way.
It was commonly mentioned that universities are the most important institutions in
society when it comes to addressing challenging issues, given that public trust towards
universities is high and because they deliver trustworthy knowledge. This role was perceived
as essential in today’s society, in which fake news and the negative impact of social media
have become more apparent:
In this kind of society where there is this abundance and a transcendent quantity of all kinds of
information . . . and everyone is choosing their own information depending on their interests . .
15
. and algorithms that push this towards people. Then it becomes increasingly important that
there is somewhere an anchor . . . I think that the university has to be that island, this landfall,
that there is some kind of a centre of true information where people have in all aspects verified
information. (S)
As observed in the example above, the importance of the university is positioned in
contrast to what has been termed a post-truth society. Many of the interviewees addressed
similar concerns and were ‘worried about the truth’. For example, one said that politicians
knew that they could say almost anything, even tell lies, and get away with it. The idea that
the university plays a critical role in such an environment was a common theme. This was
also apparent in the discussions about contemporary challenges, such as the environmental
crisis:
There is no one better suited than universities to take part in this discussion and try, at least to
the extent that it is possible, to bring forth what is truest. I cannot think of anyone that could
have more impact in that discussion as long as it is built on strong science ethics. (N)
These views reflect Arendt’s (2006/1958) messages on the fundamental role universities play
in keeping authorities in check, challenge dominant ideas and protect their independence from
authorities. However, there were complexities reflected in the experiences and visions of the
interviewees regarding their role in addressing various societal challenges. In the following
subsections, these complexities are reported. First, the epistemological dilemma many of them
discussed will be addressed, reflecting on problems associated with the effort of being critical
but objective simultaneously.
The grey area: Being critical but not too political
While the academics in general expressed a desire for a strong university that exerts societal
influence, adopts a critical stance in relation to the world’s challenges and takes an active role
in providing solutions, they also discussed how this role entails a balancing act:
16
…I absolutely think that the university should take some kind of stand for equality, not least
equal access to education. It should take a stand against racism. [It] … can address its opinions
in the matter of refugees ... But at the same time, one must realise that the boundaries are
always very blurry. When are we being political and when are we being academic? And then
[we have to] try as hard as we can to build all our opinions, all our findings, what shall I say,
make our data as tough as they can possibly become. (S)
This participant, who worked in the humanities, continued, reflecting on what he believed is
and is not hard evidence:
I would without doubt say that, regarding the environmental crisis, there we mostly have hard
evidence. That is, we have measures that we cannot doubt, other than how they are conducted
or counted or whatever . . . we need to feed the politics with this hard evidence . . . then there
are other fields . . . where academia or the space between academia and politics becomes much
narrower . . . topics like racism, all kinds of feminist and Marxist-derived theories, you know,
like Bourdieu, Foucault and all that . . . because there is a political standpoint involved at the
same time when we go into research purposely to equalise educational opportunities or to
decrease the effects of racism. As positive as that is, of course, the boundaries between politics
and academia have become a little bit blurrier. (S)
His words reflect an epistemological perspective in favour of positivism and a world in which
hard evidence and demonstration of reality through the objective collection of data is truly
possible. On the contrary, the grey areas he discussed apply to fields where social
constructionism is more dominant and the idea that knowledge can be an objective reflection
of reality tends to be questioned. This not only reflects the hierarchy of disciplines and
knowledge fields (Nussbaum 2010; Ward 2012) but also brings forward the complexities
associated with applying tools of theoretical research when researchers are assumed to
sacrifice their objectivity in the process (e.g. Árnason 2014).
The tension reflecting the epistemological poles was evident in the data, given in
expressions such as, ‘Where academic discussion ends and where a political debate starts, it
17
can be difficult to say . . . where the boundaries are is not always clear; that is what it is’ (S).
The tensions were further discussed by an academic who worked in political science:
There is an extreme societal pressure on academics in political science to have no opinions on
politics, but still, they are often asked to comment on things that are happening within the
political sphere and do that, or at least, I try to do that as neutrally as possible. But still, there
comes mudslinging, and you’re called an idiot and accused of not knowing what you are
talking about, and political science as an academic discipline is talked down to by some
querulous people that think they know everything better, that [political science] can hardly be
an academic discipline. (S)
In the example above, a common dilemma comes to the fore—while academics from different
fields of study are expected to participate in public debates and explain complex things to the
public, they experience a lack of trust despite their being experts in their fields of study, at
least in fields that are not considered ‘hard’ science. Here, the demand for objectivity
becomes restricting and unreasonable, as another academic pointed out:
The university is a little bit like, it becomes a little rigid, meaning that there are only certain
types of information that are okay. There are certain methods that are especially
acknowledged, and there are certain methods that are encouraged, that are considered worthy
of being acknowledged. (S)
The key to successfully navigating between being critical or political seems to lie in making
data as ‘hard’ as possible. This became clear in the discussions about contemporary societal
challenges. Academics perceived it an important task to influence discussions on the climate
crisis, particularly because research on this topic could provide facts and evidence. However,
addressing other issues, such as social justice, was perceived as more challenging:
I think it is very important to point to the facts, what is right and what is wrong in that relation,
as there are just some things that are right and others that are wrong . . . and there is one thing
that I find really important, particularly now in this political landscape as it is today . . . that is
for example to exert influence against all kinds of injustice, [against] those who . . . are
18
oppressed . . . . I think that the universities should somehow try to address that, try to behold
this, what shall we say, its role of truth . . . it is very easy to say this, more difficult to balance
this. (S)
The academics reflected on the epistemological traditions, discussed by Connell (2019), that
have maintained and supported the traditional knowledge hierarchy, and which is seen to
distinguish between ‘real’ knowledge and something else. This is reflected in, for example, a
hierarchy of research methods and disciplines, which are hesitant to acknowledge different
forms of knowledge and epistemologies (e.g. Becher 1989; Biesta 2007; Bleiklie 2005; Hall
2018).
The tensions characterising the discourses presented by the academics underscore the
importance of addressing these issues within academia, not least to create an understanding of
different research traditions and foster what Biesta (2007) framed as the knowledge
democracy.
Playing the research game: Marketisation purposes
Several of the academics mentioned how the intentions of their universities, in addressing
current environmental and societal challenges, were steered by marketisation and image-
building purposes and were therefore assumedly tokenistic, to some extent creating a research
game rather than being based on genuine intentions. Events, such as public meetings and
lectures on the environmental crisis and the SDGs, were mentioned when discussing this
issue. At the time of the interviews, a series of open lectures on the SDGs had been held at
one of the universities. One of our interviewees mentioned these events specifically and said,
‘I cannot help it, I think it is meretricious, that this is a part of the identity’. Furthermore, the
academic assumed that the passivity of the university when it came to addressing challenging
issues was because ‘the institution must also look good’ (N). Along the same lines, an
academic from another university said the following:
19
[I]t has to be admitted that when we are holding such open discussion meetings about some
hot topics, it is more often done for some marketisation purpose, really. To make the school
more visible and such . . . (N)
Another example mentioned was Arctic research and studies. The emphasis on the Arctic was
perceived as somewhat tokenistic and as a reflection of branding purposes:
For example, now, when the big nations started to contemplate about the Arctic . . . then like,
yes, ‘We need to make us more visible in that area’, and in some ways, it is understandable.
For example, nearly everything that is being done here could be identified as Arctic-related,
even though no one had used that particular concept . . . but I feel like it is sometimes more
about external appearance . . . I want the university . . . to focus on its strengths without
changing the names of all courses to Arctic this or Arctic that. (N)
Another angle in this discussion concerns competitive research funding and the ways in which
the organisers of these funds, on the one hand, have the power to identify pressing societal
challenges and, on the other hand, how academics could maximise their chances of getting
funding by using what some called ‘buzzwords’:
There are very many people studying global warming, but that is only because it is most likely
that the researcher will be more successful in getting money and access to conferences if he’s
doing that. Earlier, it was something different. Sustainability, all kinds of buzzwords that
travel . . . this is just these biases that guide you to a certain path that you do not even know
about . . . research is just a market and . . . this is a very difficult market. (N)
Another interviewee explained how academics follow the money, particularly ‘those who
want to have big teams and such; there is an effort made to fit projects into certain
frameworks’. One interviewee mentioned the EU in particular:
The EU is saying you are supposed to be submerged into this social responsibility, sustainable
development goals, and they are putting money into it . . . so there arises greater pressure on
having a social impact. (S)
20
These examples express the complexities associated with dealing with contemporary
challenges and topics, such as the environmental crisis, while working in the context of the
commercialisation of universities and the marketisation of research. It might become
increasingly difficult for scholars to navigate this environment. Concomitantly, as they seek
research funding in these competitive funds, where they might have to bend their initial aims
and focuses, they also need to convince others that their research intentions are genuine and
that they are working towards the common good (see Münch and Schäfer 2014). Drawing on
Niemczyk and Rónay (2023), this also applies to the government funding of research, as
governments are tempted to influence institutional decisions and research expectations.
Niemczyk and Rónay argue that this level of power can also be utilised to fulfil particular
political objectives. As Connell (2019) argued, budgets are tough, and funders are more
interested in applied research that focuses on immediate problems. As a result, theoretical
studies, for example within the humanities and social sciences, that in many cases centre on
politics and the public are affected (see also Ward 2012). Marketisation of research and
university branding and commercialisation might very well diminish trust towards university
institutions, as well as trust within the institutions themselves.
Conclusions
In this article, we explored the perspectives of academics from three universities in Iceland on
the role of universities in addressing and responding to ongoing societal challenges and the
complexities inherent in this endeavour. The findings highlighted a consensus among
academics that universities and scholars should take a more proactive stance in influencing
and impacting society. This reflects the political role of universities in contributing to the
common good of society (e.g. Biesta 2009; Gallagher 2018; Magna Carta Universitatum
2020). At the same time, academics’ reflections on the matter underscore the complexities and
tensions that this role entails, as they expressed concerns about the delicate balance between
21
critical engagement with the political role of universities and maintaining objectivity. Trust
issues also arise, particularly in fields beyond the ‘hard’ sciences, reflecting the traditional
hierarchy of knowledge and disciplines. Central to these discussions is the persistent tension
between upholding critical perspectives and fostering trustworthiness. As scholars have
pointed out, this tension is not in essence bad—in fact, it may be a crucial part of scholarly
work. It fosters the necessary scrutiny of academic work and provides a platform for in-depth
analysis. Furthermore, it challenges the notion of neutrality of science from the viewpoint of a
knowledge democracy (Biesta 2007; Hall 2018). To ensure space and platform for such social
engagement, academics need greater institutional support. Such support would entail a more
affirmative stance towards the university’s societal role, visible through policy and practice.
Such support also requires that the university continually contemplates its critical scrutiny
towards its own practices, purpose and academic responsibilities.
In a competitive and marketized academic environment, we find it important to
problematise the hierarchy of knowledge, epistemologies and research. In a world where
societal challenges are many and different between contexts, this hierarchy can limit our
understanding and ability to deal with critical contemporary challenges. It can also influence
the time and support allocated to academics in fulfilling their critical role while free from
interference from various forces of interests. There is a prevailing consensus among our
interviewees on the urgency of this undertaking on a global scale, stressing the significance of
international collaboration and the exchange of ideas in tackling contemporary environmental
and societal challenges. However, global and local research funders, public and private, have
significant impact in this regard, and it is important to address their influences critically, as
there is increasing pressure to conduct research that is likely to be successful in the
international research game (Lucas 2006; Niemczyk and Rónay 2023). This is not only related
to the hierarchy of knowledge as socially engaged research, conducted by critical scholars
22
who want to challenge the system they work within, is in danger of being marginalised and
silenced in this environment (Soler, Erdocia and Savski 2023). As importantly, this applies to
academics working within smaller non-English higher education systems, who have a harder
time getting their voices heard. Addressing the power issues that this situation presents is
important, not least in conjunction with different epistemologies and knowledge fields (Boden
and Epstein 2006), the general purpose of universities and research and research funding.
The findings demonstrate that academics clearly believe that universities play a
fundamental and critical role in building a better future and contributing to a shared sense of
societal purpose. Furthermore, the findings underscore the importance of the ethical and
responsible dimension of knowledge and of scholarly work being free from powerful
economic and political powers, perhaps the primary concern in all academic activities.
Funding: This work was supported by RANNIS, the Icelandic Centre for Research (grant number
184684-051).
Disclosure statement: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.
Data availability statement: The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data
to be shared publicly.
23
References
Arendt, Hannah. 2006/1958. Truth and politics. In Between past and future: Eight exercises in
political thought, 223–259. New York: Penguin Books.
Árnason, Vilhjálmur. 2014. Hugsmíðar: Um siðferði, stjórnmál og samfélag
[Reconstructions. Essays on morality, politics and society]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan
and Siðfræðistofnun.
Árnason, Vilhjálmur. 2022. “Lýðræðishlutverk háskóla og áskoranir samtímans [The
democratic role of the university and contemporary challenges]”. Netla - veftímarit um
uppeldi og menntun. https://doi.org/10.24270/serritnetla.2022.8
Beach, Dennis, and Goran Puaca. 2014. “Changing higher education by converging policy-
packages: Education choices and student identities”. European Journal of Higher
Education 4(1): 67–79.
Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories. Buckingham: Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Biesta, Gert. 2007. “Towards the knowledge democracy? Knowledge production and the civic
role of the university”. Studies in Philosophy and Education 26: 467–479.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-007-9056-0.
Biesta, Gert. 2009. “What kind of citizenship for European higher education? Beyond the
competent active citizen”. European Educational Research Journal 8(2): 146–158.
Bjarnadóttir, Valgerður, Anna Ólafsdóttir, and Guðrún Geirsdóttir. 2019. “Þrástef, þagnir og
mótsagnir um lýðræðislegt hlutverk íslenskra háskóla [Discursive themes, silences, and
contradictions on the democratic role of universities in Iceland]”. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla
[Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration] 15(2): 183–204.
https://doi.org/10.13177/irpa.a.2019.15.2.3
Bleiklie, Ivar. 2005. “Organizing higher education in a knowledge society”. Higher Education
49: 31–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2913-7
Boden, Rebecca, and Debbie Epstein. 2006. “Managing the research imagination?
Globalisation and research in higher education”. Globalisation, Societies and Education
4(2): 223–236.
Bosio, Emiliano. 2019. “The need for a values-based university curriculum”. University
World News: The Global Window on Higher Education, 28 September 2019.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Thematic analysis: A practical guide. London:
Sage.
24
Brinkmann, Svend, and Steinar Kvale. 2015. InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative
research interviewing. Third edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
Christofoletti, Evandro C. and Rómulo Pinhero. 2023. “Taking stock: The impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic on University–Community engagement”. Industry and Higher
Education 37(2): 251–264. 10.1177/09504222221119927
Collini, Stefan. 2012. What are universities for? London: Penguin.
Connell, Raewyn. 2019. The good university: What universities actually do and why it’s time
for radical change. London: ZED.
Fanghanel, Joëlle. 2012. Being and academic. New York: Routledge.
Gallagher, Tony. 2018. “Promoting the civic and democratic role of higher education: The
next challenge for the EHEA”. In European higher education area: The impact of past and
future policies edited by Adrian Curaj, Ligia Deca, and Remus Pricopie, 335–344. Chem:
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77407-7_21
Giroux, Henry. 2014. Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Chicago: Heymarket Books.
Giroux, Henry. 2015. “Democracy in crisis, the specter of authoritarianism, and the future of
higher education”. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student
Affairs 1(1): 101–113.
Hall, Budd. 2018. “Beyond epistemicide: Knowledge, democracy and higher education”. In
Dissident knowledge in higher education edited by Marc Spooner and James McNinch,
84–101. Regina: University of Regina Press.
Hall, Budd, and Rajesh Tandon. 2017. “Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide,
participatory research and higher education”. Research for All 1(1): 6–19.
https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.01.1.02
Hazelkorn, Ellen, and Andrew Gibson. 2018. “Public goods and public policy: What is public
good, and who and what decides?” Higher Education 78(2): 257–271.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0341-3.
Hazelkorn, Ellen, and Andrew Gibson. 2017. “Global science, national research, and the
question of university rankings”. Palgrave Communications 3(1): 21.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0011-6
Jónasson, Jón Torfi. 2011. “Háskólar og gagnrýnin þjóðfélagsumræða [Universities and
critical social debate]”. Ritið 1: 47–64.
Kerr, Clarke. 1963. The uses of the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lorenz, Chris. 2012. “If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities,
neoliberalism, and New Public Management”. Critical Inquiry 38(3): 599–629.
25
Lucas, Lisa. 2006. The research game in academic life. Maidenhead: Society for Research in
Higher Education and Open University Press.
Magna Carta Universitatum. 2020. https://www.magna-charta.org/magna-charta-
universitatum/mcu2020
Marginson, Simon. 2007. “National and global competition in higher education”. In The
Routledge Falmer reader in education policy and politics edited by Bob Lingard and Jenny
Ozga, 203–226. London: Routledge.
Marginson, Simon. 2018. “Global trends in higher education financing: The United
Kingdom”. International Journal of Educational Development 58: 26–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.03.008.
Marginson, Simon, and Xin Xu. 2022. “Hegemony and inequality in global science: Problems
of the center-periphery model”. Comparative Education Review 67(1): 31–52
Münch, Richard, and Len Ole Schäfer. 2014. “Rankings, diversity and the power of renewal
in science. A comparison between Germany, the UK and the US”. European Journal of
Education 49(1): 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12065
Naidoo, Rajani. 2018. “The competition fetish in higher education: Shamans, mind snares and
consequences”. European Educational Research Journal 17(5): 605–620.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118784839
Niemczyk, Ewelina K., and Zoltán Rónay. 2023. “Roles, requirements and autonomy of
academic researchers”. Higher Education Quarterly 77: 327–341.
https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12403
Nussbaum, Martha. 2002. “Education for citizenship in an era of global connection”. Studies
in Philosophy and Education 21: 289–303.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2010. Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Ólafsdóttir, Anna, and Jón Torfi Jónasson. 2017. “Quality assurance in a small HE system. Is
the Icelandic system in some ways special?” In Quality assurance in higher education: A
global perspective, edited by Stamelos Georgios, K.M. Joshi, and Saeed Paivandi, 203–
226. Delhi: Studera.
Regmi, Kapil Dev. 2023. “Decolonising meritocratic higher education: Key challenges and
directions for change”. Globalisation, Societies and Education: 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2023.2210516
26
Research Ethics Committee. 2014. “Vísindasiðareglur Háskóla Íslands [University of Iceland
research ethical codes]”. University of Iceland.
https://www.hi.is/sites/default/files/oddstu/vshi_sidareglur_16_1_2014.pdf.
Robertson, Susan. 2010. “Corporatisation, competitiveness, commercialisation: New logics in
the globalising of UK higher education”. Globalisation, Societies and Education 8(2):
191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767721003776320
Schofer, Evan, Ramirez O. Francisco, and John W. Meyer. 2020. “The societal consequences
of higher education”. Sociology of Education 94(1): 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040720942912
Skúlason, Páll. 2015. A critique of universities: Reflections on the status and direction of the
modern university. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press.
Slaughter, Sheila, and Brendan Cantwell. 2012. “Transatlantic moves to the market: The
United States and the European Union”. Higher Education 63(5): 583–606.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41429102
Solbrekke, ToneDyrdal, and Ciaran Surgrue. 2020. “Leading higher education as, and for,
public good: New beginnings”. In Leading higher education as and for public good:
Rekindling education as praxis, edited by ToneDyrdal Solbrekke and Ciaran Sugure.
London: Routledge.
Soler, Joseph, Iker Erdocia, and Kristof Savski. 2023. “(Im)possible change. Criticality and
constraints in the infrastructures of the academic knowledge economy”. Language, Culture
and Society 5(2): 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1075/lcs.00040.sol
Ylijoki, Oili-Helena. 2022. “Invisible hierarchies in academic work and career-building in an
interdisciplinary landscape”. European Journal of Higher Education 12(4): 356–372.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2049335
Ward, Stephen. 2012. Neoliberalism and the global restructuring of knowledge and
education. New York: Routledge.
White, Morgan. 2017. Towards a political theory of the university: Public reason, democracy
and higher education. London: Routledge.
Wihlborg, Monica. 2019. “Critical viewpoints on the Bologna Process in Europe: Can we do
otherwise?” European Educational Research Journal 18(2): 135–157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118824229
27
Table 1
University
Schools
Number of
participants
University of Iceland
(n=10)
School of Engineering & Natural Sciences
5 (3 females, 2 males)
School of Social Sciences
5 (3 females, 2 males)
Reykjavík University
(n=7)
School of Technology
3 (2 females, 1 male)
School of Social Sciences
4 (2 females, 2 males)
University of Akureyri
(n=9)
School of Business & Science
4 (2 females, 2 males)
School of Humanities & Social Sciences
5 (2 females, 3 males)
