Search

The European Universities Initiative (EUI) is a relatively new scheme of higher education collaboration and is set out to create multilateral alliances between higher education institutions across Europe, working towards strengthening quality and competitiveness in higher education and ultimately becoming `the universities of the future ́. The pilot call in 2019 resulted in the establishment of 17 alliances, and the second call in 2020 resulted in 24 new alliances. Altogether there are now 41 higher education alliances including universities from both the European Union member states and partner countries. Although international strategic alliances in the field of higher education and research collaboration have become a new empirical fact (Thomas, 2014), there still is a gap in understanding how these bodies are being organised and governed. This study seeks to address this lacuna by investigating how decision-making processes take place in two EUI alliances – Circle U. and FORTHEM. The study is qualitative in character, focusing on semi-structured interviews with key actors from the alliances and review of relevant literature and policy documents. Conceptually the study builds on decision theory, whereby four decision-making models have been chosen and outlined; the rational actor model, the collegial model, the political model and the garbage can model. The study investigates two main stages in the alliances – the initiation stage and the consolidation stage. Key findings from the initiation stage reveal that both Circle U. and FORTHEM were formed based on existing connections between the participating universities, however they also revealed that Circle U. was more strategically selective than FORTHEM at this stage. In the consolidation stage, the findings reveal Circle U. and FORTHEM as having formalised and hierarchical structures, although decision-making power have been delegated downwards to the lower levels. It is also shown that much of the structure and goals had already been chosen ex-ante by the Commission. Regarding decision-making the findings demonstrate that decisions are made by consensus in both alliances, and that resource dependency, soft power, trust and tensions underpin these decision-making processes. Keywords: alliances, collaboration, European Universities Initiative, internationalisation, Circle U., FORTHEM, decision-making, decision theory

Agenda-setting dynamics are widely acknowledged as a combination of issue definitions and venues. Although venues have been receiving significant scholarly attention, the concept of issue definition is poorly developed and lacks operationalization. This PhD thesis therefore offers an analytical framework for issue definition encompassing three attributes (substance, salience, and framing), drawing on the interdisciplinary agenda-setting literature and interconnecting the debate of issue definitions with issue hierarchization. The proposed framework aims to contribute to the punctuated equilibrium theory by identifying what issues are defined through negative feedback (self-corrective mechanisms) and what issues are through positive feedback (shifts). The agenda of the European Council from 2014 to 2022 (the last two constellations of the European Union) is analyzed by applying the qualitative methodological approach. The findings show that the effect of positive feedback determines primary issues, i.e., the most salient issues on the agenda, and that negative feedback is connected to issues at all positions within the issue hierarchization, i.e., the negative feedback also generates primary issues. The research exposes that the feedback determining issue definitions influences which issues are on...

This book explores how the notion of the responsible university manifests itself at various levels within Nordic higher education. As the impetus of the knowledge society has catapulted the higher education sector to the forefront of policy agendas, universities and other types of higher education institutions face increasing scrutiny, assessment and accountability. This book examines this phenomenon using the Nordic countries as cases in point, given the strong public commitment towards widening participation and public research investments. The editors and contributors analyse the history and current transformations of the idea of the responsible university, investigate new innovations in the educational landscape and look into how universities have begun to organise themselves to become more responsible. Drawing together scholars from the humanities and the social sciences, this interdisciplinary collection will be of interest and value to students and scholars of the role and nature of the modern university, in addition to practitioners and policy makers tasked with finding solutions to address the competing and often contradictory demands posed by a responsibility agenda.

Universities are public organisations, which operate in a highly institutionalised environment. They are heavily dependent on public resources. As such, universities are susceptible to shifts in governance arrangements but are also far from being passive recipients of reform agendas. They face demands from multiple internal constituencies (academics, administrators, students, managers) and from a variety of external stakeholders. This chapter explores the interplay between governance arrangements resulting from policy shifts and university dynamics. It sets the stage for the book, asking the following research questions: (1) what characterises changes in governance regimes in Nordic universities in the last decade and a half, and (2) what effects have these changes had in the evolution of higher education systems? The chapter takes a comparative approach and identifies similarities and differences across the Nordic countries. This chapter serves as a frame of reference for the book and includes a common methods and data section.

This chapter provides a brief description of how the four national systems included in this study—Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden—are currently organised and structured. In doing so, it illuminates several specific features such as the types and sizes of the institutions, enrolment patterns, performance measures, and funding. In addition, the chapter gives a snapshot of how higher education systems have evolved historically by shedding light on policy dynamics from the late 1990s to 2013, the baseline period for the FINNUT comparative study, the research project that provides the basis for this edited volume. This is followed by a section describing the aim, methods, theoretical framework, and conceptual and analytical backdrops underpinning the study. The chapter concludes with an overview of the volume’s structure and key insights from the individual contributions.

The social responsibility of universities is to contribute to solving the ‘wicked problems’ facing humanity, including climate change, poverty, conflicts and the lack of energy resources. Interdisciplinarity is an approach that enables solving these problems and helps higher education institutions become more socially responsible while meeting the requirements of their stakeholders. In this chapter, we analyse a multidisciplinary and sector-breaking merger of three higher education institutions in Finland, where the merger is justified by its contribution to solving wicked problems through increased structural interdisciplinarity. We examine the suggested faculty structures and views of staff and students to understand how interdisciplinarity and addressing the needs of stakeholders are seen from the perspective of technical education. The interdisciplinary faculty structure is heavily criticised by the internal stakeholders, who claim that it does not meet the needs of the university’s external stakeholders. However, there is debate on whose interests and identities are at risk when the disciplinary boundaries of technical education are transgressed.

In this introductory chapter, the concept of the responsible university is introduced and put into context, first concerning other organisations and society at large, secondly in a historical perspective and thirdly related to policy initiatives across the globe. We also discuss how to implement this concept within the complex organisations that universities constitute. Lastly, we present some key features of the Nordic countries and introduce the empirical chapters of the book.

This concluding chapter takes stock of the major elements, both empirical and conceptual, that underpin the case chapters presented in the book. The chapter is organised in three distinct sections. First, addressing a largely scientific audience, the chapter attempts to make conceptual sense of the findings from an organisational theory perspective. Second, it shifts focus to the wider community of practitioners (policy makers, advisers, university managers and administrators, etc.) by shedding light on the practical implications of the volume’s core findings for both policy and practice. Third, the chapter once again addresses an academic audience by sketching out the road ahead regarding future studies in the area.