Advertisement

Balancing accountability and trust: university reforms in the Nordic countries

  • Hanne Foss HansenEmail author
  • Lars Geschwind
  • Jussi Kivistö
  • Elias Pekkola
  • Rómulo Pinheiro
  • Kirsi Pulkkinen
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the accountability mechanisms introduced in the universities in the Nordic countries by building on a typology of accountability types. By utilising survey data, it analyses how academics experience the changes in accountability mechanisms and how they perceive the impact of these changes on their performance. The analysis shows that especially political/bureaucratic and managerial accountability demands have been strengthened. This development has fostered debates on how to measure academic performance. Some academics, more in Denmark than in the other countries, have experienced the development as a sign of mistrust.

Keywords

Accountability Trust Universities Nordic countries Performance management Policy reforms Academic perceptions 

Notes

References

  1. Aagaard, K. (2012). Reformbølgen tager form. In K. Aagaard & N. Mejlgaard (Eds.), Dansk forskningspolitik efter årtusindskiftet (pp. 37–57). Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  2. Abbot, A. (1988). The system of professions: an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ahlbäck Öberg, S., & Sundberg, E. (2016). Avkollegialiseringen av den svenska högskolan. In S. Ahlbäck Öberg, L. Bennich-Björkman, J. Hermansson, A. Jarstad, C. Karlsson, & S. Widmalm (Eds.), Det hotade universitetet (pp. 45–69). Stockholm: Dialogos förlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., & Goodin, R. E. (2014). Public accountability. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Byrkeflot, H., Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2013). The many faces of accountability: comparing reforms in welfare, hospitals and migration. Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(2), 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). The Ashgate research companion to new public management. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge handbook to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: academic organization in cross-national perspective. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremonini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., & Vossensteyn, H. (2015). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Dubnick, M. J. (2014). Accountability as a cultural keyword. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 23–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fägerlind, I., & Strömqvist, G. (2004). Reforming higher education in the Nordic countries: studies of change in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning, UNESCO.Google Scholar
  13. Gailmard, S. (2014). Conceptual flavor of principal-agent theory. In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gornitzka, Å., Stensaker, B., Smeby, J.-C., & De Boer, H. (2004). Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries: solving the efficiency-effectiveness dilemma? Higher Education in Europe, 29, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammarfelt, B., Nelhans, G., Eklund, P., & Åström, F. (2016). The heterogeneous landscape of bibliometric indicators: evaluating models for allocating resources at Swedish universities. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huisman, J. (2018). Accountability in higher education: different forms, functions and forums. In E. Hazelkorn, H. Coates, & A. C. McCormick (Eds.), Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education (pp. 125–138). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karlsson, S., Fogelberg, K., Kettis, Å., Lindgren, S., Sandoff, M., & Geschwind, L. (2014). Not just another evaluation: a comparative study of four educational quality projects at Swedish universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(3), 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwiek, M. (2018). Changing European academics: a comparative study of social stratification, work patterns and research productivity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Langfeldt, L., & Kyvik, S. (2010). Researchers as evaluators: tasks, tensions and politics. Higher Education, 62(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maassen, P. (2014). A new social contract for higher education? In G. Goastellec & F. Picard (Eds.), Higher education in societies (pp. 33–50). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Neave, G. (2002). The stakeholder perspective historically explored. In J. Enders & O. Fulton (Eds.), Higher education in a globalising world: international trends and mutual observations: a festschrift in honour of Ulrich Teichler (pp. 17–37). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 25–54). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olsen, J. P. (2017). Democratic accountability and the terms of political order. European Journal of Political Science Review, 9(4), 519–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar
  27. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ramirez, F. O. (2010). Accounting for excellence: Transforming universities into organizational actors. In V. Rust, L. Portnoi, & S. Bagely (Eds.), Higher education, policy, and the global competition phenomenon (pp. 43–58). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidtlein, F., & Berdahl, R. (2005). Autonomy and accountability: who controls academe? In P. Altbach, R. Berdahl, & P. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 71–90). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stensaker, B. (2014). Troublesome institutional autonomy: governance and the distribution of authority in Norwegian universities. In M. Shattock (Ed.), International trends in university governance: autonomy, self-government and the distribution of authority (pp. 34–48). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (Eds.). (2011). Accountability in higher education: global perspectives on trust and power. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Swedish Government (2010a). En akademi i tiden - ökad frihet för universitet och högskolor. Government Bill 2009/10:149. Available at http://www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/proposition/2010/03/prop.-200910149/. Accessed 16 Jan 2019.
  33. Swedish Government (2010b). En reformerad grundlag. Government Bill 2009/10:80. Available at https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/proposition/en-reformerad-grundlag_GX0380. Accessed 16 Jan 2019.
  34. Swedish Government (2016). Kunskap i samverkan – för samhällets utmaningar och stärkt konkurrenskraft. PRO 2016/17:50. Available at http://www.regeringen.se/rattsdokument/proposition/2016/11/prop.-20161750/. Accessed 16 Jan 2019.
  35. Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession: major findings of a comparative survey. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanne Foss Hansen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lars Geschwind
    • 2
  • Jussi Kivistö
    • 3
  • Elias Pekkola
    • 3
  • Rómulo Pinheiro
    • 4
  • Kirsi Pulkkinen
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Faculty of ManagementUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  4. 4.Department of Political Science and ManagementUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
  5. 5.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of LaplandRovaniemiFinland

Personalised recommendations