Abstract
Among the recent mergers in Swedish higher education, two have been takeovers, where the smaller party has been fully integrated into the larger party. These are, firstly, the takeover of Stockholm Institute of Education by Stockholm University in 2008 and, secondly, the takeover of Gotland University College by Uppsala University in 2013. Our comparative analysis of the two mergers shows that the main drivers and rationales, as well as the implementation, differ substantially. Whereas the former was a conflict-ridden process driven by a national political agenda and ideological disagreement on quality, the latter was a more proactive, reciprocal process driven principally by financial and personal motives at the institutional level. As such, the processes can be labelled “hostile” and “friendly”, respectively. Beyond this categorisation, however, the cases are found to carry more complexity. Depending on how “success” is defined, both processes have had some positive short- and mid-term effects. This partly contradicts previous studies identifying e.g. lengthy consolidation phases and cultural compatibility as success factors. Both cases point to the role of the state and the importance of the political context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Aula, H.-M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming “world-class”? Reputation-building in a university merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7–29.
Cai, Y. (2006). A case study of academic staff integration in a post-merger Chinese university. Tertiary Education and Management, 12(3), 215–226.
Christensen, S. H., & Erno-Kjolhede, E. (2011). Academic drift in Danish professional engineering education. Myth or reality? Opportunity or threat? European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(3), 285–299.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.
Curri, G. (2002). Reality versus perception: Restructuring tertiary education and institutional organisational change: A case study. Higher Education, 44(1), 133–151.
Ekholm, L. (2008). Ett stycke svensk utbildningshistoria? Utvärdering av samgåendet mellan Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm och Stockholms universitet. Stockholm.
Finansdepartementet. (2013). Proposition 2013/14:1 Utgiftsområde 16: Utbildning och universitetsforskning, Stockholm.
Gamage, D. T. (1992). Recent reforms in Australian higher education with particular reference to institutional amalgamations. Higher Education, 24(1), 77–92.
Hansen, H. F. (2012). Fusionsprocesserne. Frivillighed under tvang? In Dansk forskningspolitik efter årtusindskiftet. Aarhus: Aarhus universitetsforlag.
Harman, G., & Harman, K. (2003). Institutional mergers in higher education: Lessons from international experience. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(1), 29–44.
Harman, K., & Meek, V. L. (2002). Introduction to special issue: “Merger revisited: international perspectives on mergers in higher education.”. Higher Education, 44(1), 1–4.
Harman, K., & Meek, V. L. (2008). Strategic mergers of strong institutions to enhance competitive advantage. Higher Education Policy, 21(1), 99–121.
Harwood, J. (2010). Understanding academic drift: On the institutional dynamics of higher technical and professional education. Minerva, 48(4), 413–427.
Kyvik, S. (2002). The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. Higher Education, 44(1), 53–72.
Kyvik, S., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Mergers in Norwegian higher education. In R. Pinheiro, L. Geschwind, & T. Aarrevaara (Eds.), Mergers in higher education: The experience from Northern Europe (pp. 29–42). Dordrecht: Springer.
McGinnis, R. A., McMillen, W., & Gold, J. P. (2007). Merging two universities: The Medical University of Ohio and the University of Toledo. Academic Medicine, 82(12), 1187–1195.
Melin, G., Fridholm, T., & Ärenman, E. (2013). Erfarenheter av lärosätesfusioner i Sverige och Danmark, Stockholm.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., & Aarrevaara, T. (2013). Mergers in higher education: What do we know and what are we lacking? In EAIR annual conference, Rotterdam: EAIR.
Pritchard, R. M. O., & Williamson, A. (2007). Long-term human outcomes of a “shotgun” marriage in higher education. Anatomy of a merger, two decades later. Higher Education Management and Policy, 20(1), 1–23.
Rowley, G. (1997). Strategic alliances: United we stand: A strategic analysis of mergers in higher education. Public Money and Management, 17(4), 7–12.
Sandström, B., et al. (2006). Utredning angående förutsättningarna för ett samgående mellan Lärarhögskolan och Stockholms universitet, Stockholm.
UK-ämbetet. (2013). Higher education in Sweden 2013 status report. Report 2013:3, Stockholm.
Uppsala University and University College Gotland. (2011). Avsiktsförklaring Uppsala universitet och Högskolan på Gotland, UFV 2011/1998, A13–2011/713. Uppsala: Uppsala University.
Uppsala University. (2013). Goals and strategies for campus Gotland 2013–2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karlsson, S., Geschwind, L. (2016). Takeovers in Swedish Higher Education: Comparing the “Hostile” and the “Friendly”. In: Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Aarrevaara, T. (eds) Mergers in Higher Education. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21918-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21918-9_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21917-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21918-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)