The STRUT-report viewed from across Öresund

”En langsiktig samordnad och dialogbaserad styrning av hogskolan”

Trust. Dialogue, authonomy, integrity, responsibility, peer, collaboration, long term, flexible. Key words for Swedish higher education in the 21st century? And how does that look from Denmark?

April 2017 the Swedish government appointed former vice-chancellor at University of Gothenburg Pam Fredman as special investigator to make a thorough review of the external governance and funding of Swedish higher education and propose a new regime. The so-called STRUT, Styr- och resursutredning. Friday February 1 Pam Fredman’s STRUT-report was published. The key words above are high-lighted in the report. It is a thorough and interesting read. Not least from a Danish perspective.

More than a bridge apart

Knowledge for a better world. An ambitious and inspiring overreaching aim of higher education set forth in the STRUT-report. And interestingly the main elements for reaching this ambition is defined in the report as a combination of independence and responsiveness towards society. Reading the report in Copenhagen the emphasis on independence seems to be the most important part.

Connected by the Öresund Bridge and centuries of history Denmark and Sweden share many commonalities. And looking at our higher educational systems from afar, our systems may look alike. But a closer look reveals fascinating differences. The STRUT-report highlights these differences and show some similarities.

Having worked with the almost constant flow of reforms of science and higher education in Denmark for more than 10 years and among other things as member of the Nordic Council of Minister’s committee on quality in higher education, the peculiar Danish desire for change and the Swedish steadier approach has struck me as an interesting case with ample opportunity for learning on both sides of Öresund.

In May last year we in DAMVAD Analytics published a report on the last decade and a half of reforms in Denmark as part of Svenskt Näringsliv’s shadow-committee on governance and funding of Swedish higher education; "skuggutredning".

Knowledge for a better world - or a richer society?

If knowledge for a better world is the driving ambition of the STRUT-report, knowledge for a richer Denmark could be the main Danish ambition. Danish educational policy has been focused first on strengthening the match with the needs and developments of the labor market, second on quality, and third; at the moment on increasing flexibility and a dash of ‘bildung’ and the courage to make mistakes.

Especially “relevance”, ensuring a strong match between education and societal needs, has been promoted through relatively heavy-handed measures in Denmark. First more than 10 years ago by demanding advisory boards for all educational programs and a strong external control through independent accreditation with the power to reject new programs and to shut down existing, if they fail to ensure a strong dialogue with and focus on the labor market. Later with a mechanism that limits the number of new students for programs with high unemployment rates, and now a new funding mechanism will directly connect the funding of higher education with the ability of graduates to find jobs. These hard tools have been supplemented by soft tools such as UddannelsesZoom, an online tool informing future students on employment rates, likely salary-ranges and other data on each program. These ‘matching’ tools are strikingly different from the STRUT-reports rejection of the idea of using hard tools such as financial incentives to promote a stronger match.

Predicting the unpredictable

The argument in the STRUT-report is that the rapid changes and unpredictable in the labor market goes against the use of incentives. This is an argument also heard in the Danish discussion. And as with all serious discussion, both arguments have merit. The labor market is changing at an increasing rate and this challenges higher education, where the timeframe from increasing or decreasing the intake of new students to actual consequences in the supply of new graduates in the labor market takes years. The same goes for changes to the content or developing new programs. Time from idea to market is often more than five years.

So how can universities and högskoler be financially responsible for getting the right match? From a Danish experience, the answer is quite a bit. But it is also, that institutions cannot bear the full responsibility. While changes are indeed rapid, they are not necessarily completely unpredictable. Some programs have consistent high unemployment rates. Other have consistent low unemployment. With good statistics and sound economic forecast, much can actually be predicted. Combining detailed data on employment with a committed dialogue between institutions and employers on developments in the labor market where both parts have a vested interest in strengthening the right match has proven a useful tool. And predictive models using among other things real-time data on the development in job postings can give new insights for promoting the labor market match of higher education. And finally much can be achieved by more active career counseling and a stronger focus on how the day to day content and structure of programs can prepare students for work.

Is dialogue and trust enough?

Economic incentives and a relatively heavy-handed accreditation system are clear signs the Danish system strongly emphasises matching and the Danish institutions show in practice that they act accordingly. And while Denmark may have been a first mover in the emphasis on relevance, the ball is now rolling in many countries, making it even more interesting that the STRUT-report insists on another approach.

In the STRUT-report the main tool for meeting labor market needs seem to be dialogue and the desire of institutions to meet societal challenges. Having worked with academic leaders and staff across institutions in many countries the responsibility towards society is obvious to me. The universities and högskoler I know are not distant ivory towers aloof from society but always committed to making a difference. The challenge is not a lack of will, but perhaps rather a challenge of focus. Institutions of higher education serve many purposes and luckily, they are not monolithic hierarchical organisations. As such institutions will pursue different agendas and aims, and from my experience relevance may not always be first or second. The strong emphasis on autonomy and rejection of incentives therefore makes it difficult to see how the STRUT-report will change the dynamic between Swedish higher education and the labor market. This seems quite deliberate but given the apparent challenges of recruiting qualified labor in Sweden, as in many other advanced economies, there seems to be a lack of alternative systemic measures.

Long term policy

While the rejection of Danish-style matching-policies mark a stark difference between the STRUT-report and the Danish system, the STRUT-proposal for individual four-year agreements between the government and each university or högskole resamples the resent change in the more formal relationship between the Danish government and the institutions. Long term planning based on goals set in dialogue seems to be common approach that gives room for individual paths based on relative strengths and specific or local challenges and opportunities. There are two main differences between the Danish system and the proposed Swedish. In Denmark the individual agreements are connected to the funding of each institution. How this connection will be realised still remains to seen in practice, but again the Danish system insists on economic incentives rather than dialogue and trust alone. On the other hand, the STRUT-report interestingly connects the individual four-year agreement to overall four-year plans decided by Riksdagen and furthermore the report emphasizes the need for stronger collaboration between institutions as part of this planning. Both the connection between individual institutional agreements and overall plans for the higher educational system and the emphasis on regional or sector specific collaboration are interesting seen from a Danish perspective.

Research

A few notes on the STRUT-reports suggestions regarding research. The debate on the balance between external and basic research funding is not new in Sweden nor in Denmark and elsewhere. The main suggestion in the report is that basic and external research funding should balance equally, but perhaps just as interestingly the report rejects the use of bibliometrics indicators and the level of external research funding as measures of research excellence. Instead the report suggests the sector together with other actors (but strikingly from a Danish perspective not the Swedish government) should develop new national measures of research quality. Other than bibliometrics and external research funding the UK Research Assessment Framework is perhaps the most known national system of assessing research quality. But the general rejection of linking funding to external measures or indicators seems to indicate, that STRUT also regarding research suggests that decisions on funding should be based on other criteria and without internationally agreed standards.

Equality

Equality has a separate chapter in the report, and reading this from Denmark one could get the impression that the strong emphasis on equality is very Swedish. It wouldn't get such a key position in a Danish report. The reality is though that is is Denmark that is the odd country out here, while the Swedish position is much more mainstream. Equality, equity and inclusion is very much a hot topic in higher education debates around the world. But somehow we in Denmark seem to think it less important. The reality in Denmark is nevertheless that we should talk much about equality. Here we have much to learn from Sweden.

Professional management

A final observation: From a Danish perspective it is striking how the STRUT-report emphasises external governance but not the internal governance of the individual institutions. In Denmark it started the other way around. In 2003 management structures of universities were reformed with the introduction of board of directors with external majorities and the replacement of elected rectors with rectors and other academic management employed by the board. And in 2007 a number of institutions were merged to establish stronger strategic capabilities of institutions. And the latest Danish reforms also focus on the internal management of institutions. This is also emphasised by the Danish system of institutional accreditation, the main Danish external quality assurance mechanism, where the internal governance structures are the main focus of attention. Again, the Danish system is quite heavy-handed also regarding external quality assurance, as failure to meet the elaborate requirements to internal management of education can lead to an institution losing the right to establish new programs.

Working with Danish institutions today I meet highly professional administrative and management structures with extensive data on both their internal affairs and external relations as well as desire to use the newest business intelligence methodologies. This is among other things a result of rules, incentives and external expectations. Swedish institutions are hardly unprofessional, and in our daily collaboration with Swedish institutions, we meet highly capable leaders and administrations, but the difference in how the internal capabilities are viewed as part of the ability of institutions to engage with society and act strategically is nevertheless striking.