1. 1
IAU Conference 24-26 June, 2010 Vilnius, Lithuania
Parallel Session II: b. Risks and threats to Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy
Agneta Bladh: Autonomy is threatened both from inside and from outside
Governments in different countries around the world have in recent years introduced major
reforms of their university systems. These reforms are in general a response to changes in the
socio-economic and political environments of the universities. Technological change, change
in competency and skill requirements in the labor market as well as changing demographics
and mobility patterns, belong to these new environments. In countries where levels of
autonomy are traditionally low, there is a move to expand the degree of institutional
autonomy. In countries where the universities have enjoyed traditionally high degree of
autonomy, the regulatory regime of the autonomous universities is strengthened in line with
the requirements of the public interest. Both lines have the same argument for the changes in
autonomy: higher effectiveness and quality of the universities in order to make them act in
line with the needs of society.
In countries where the regulatory regime is decreasing, a new steering regime is introduced. It
concerns results-oriented funding, quality assurance systems and new governance systems.
The pressure from governments on governance focuses on the existence of external members
and an external chair in the governing boards. Governments want to ensure external insight
for deregulation to take place. The traditional collegial decision making processes in
universities are often seen as inadequate by politicians to meet the new demands on
universities. They are also seen as ineffective.
Governing boards with external members and external chair have been introduced in the
Nordic countries, though introduced at different times and with different rules. Some faculty
staff at universities interpret governing boards with externals as a menace to the academic
freedom. They want the traditional collegial decision-making to persist, though the interaction
with the surrounding society is widely accepted.
Is there a threat to academic freedom and institutional autonomy with the externals in the
governing boards? We have to remind ourselves that higher education institutions do not exist
for themselves but for the benefits they bring to humankind and to society. Academic freedom
and institutional autonomy cannot be seen as isolated from the tasks higher education
institutions have in the globalised world of the 21st century.
As guidance, let us go back to statements made by organizations from our sector to
understand the frameworks given for a modern society.
The Magna Charta Universitatum, signed for the first time in Bologna 1988, which has its
main focus on academic freedom and institutional autonomy, includes paragraphs on the
responsibility of universities towards their societies. With the Magna Charta Universitatum as
background, the International Association of Universities (IAU), paid attention to this issue
in a statement in 1998, stressing the fact that academic freedom and institutional autonomy be
seen in the same context as the social responsibility of higher education institutions. In 2007,
the statement from the European University Association (EUA) in the Lisbon Declaration
on Academic freedom, also mentioned the responsibilities of higher education institutions
towards their surrounding society.
1

2. 2
So, we can see that different statements made by our organisations, also recognize the
openness to the surrounding society. But what does this mean to universities? What is the role
for universities in the modern society? Is it to be a knowledge provider to the present needs of
their society? Is it to be the cultural bearer focussing on development of knowledge and
wisdom independently of the present needs of their society? I think most academics believe
their universities need to fulfil both roles. There has to be certain obliging, at the same time as
the societies never know what kind of knowledge they will need in the future. Therefore the
universities have to develop knowledge which might be useful in a broader sense or in the
future. The central issue for the universities is how to combine the interaction with the
surrounding society with the integrity of the institution.
I have experience from a governing board with a majority of external members and an
external chair from my six-year period as rector. To my opinion, the externals are there for
help, for insight and for legitimacy. University governance with external members gives your
university a higher confidence from society at large, a better balance between accountability
and autonomy, a new balance of co-determination versus decisiveness and effectiveness and it
facilitates collaboration between the universities and their surroundings.
Governments often finance the higher education institutions and set rules and directions not
just financially, but also in many other respects, even in the academic core tasks. Different
ways of controlling the academic sector are often internalised in the country’s institutional
settings, and therefore “unseen” by many academics. The reason for steering is often that
politicians see the higher education institutions as old-fashioned and not responding to the
new needs of the modern society. The many university reforms in several countries, including
the Bologna Process, are a sign of this. The need to control the academic sector, having
relatively high international contacts, might also be a reason for political intervention. Most of
the changes governments have introduced in the higher education sector lately are directed
towards the institutional leadership of universities. The governments want their universities to
act strategically and meet different demands in the society. The combined new steering is
often marketed as an increased autonomy for universities.
In many countries a large part of the research funding is indirect (through research councils)
and thus encourages competition between researchers. The other side of the coin is that the
institution itself might be restricted in its acting if most of the research funding come from
external sources. Even part of the direct funding is dependent on results, as publishing and
citation. This is the case in the Nordic countries. In Sweden, the government also intends to
introduce a qualitative funding scheme for part of the funding of undergraduate and graduate
education.
Is the present trend with new steering instruments a threat to institutional autonomy? To
academic freedom? I think it mostly gives increased autonomy to the universities, but it is too
early to evaluate. The new steering systems introduced at the same time, intending to make
the universities act more effectively and with higher quality, might at the same time imply
new frames and new restrictions to universities and their faculty staff. The new tools
introduced by governments are not only new ways of composing the governing board and
new result-based funding schemes, but also new ways of appointing leaders and tougher
quality assurance systems. It may therefore mean decreased autonomy, though the sector is
deregulated. The new funding schemes and the tougher quality assurance systems may
indicate decreased academic freedom but it is still too early to say.
2

3. 3
The threats to institutional autonomy from the national governments are most discussed.
Added to this, the influence from the local and regional political level can be an
embarrassment to the integrity of the institutions. The dependence on external financial
contributors from the business sector is, aside the government relations, much discussed by
academics. The dependence on certain companies or other organisations and the risk not to be
independent in the research pursued has been discussed especially in those scientific fields
which are attractive to external funding.
We often see the risks and threats of academic freedom and institutional autonomy coming
from the outside. There are also internal risks and threats to academic freedom and
institutional autonomy. The internal risks and threats depend both on the faculty staff and on
the academic leadership. An academic leadership at the institutional level might fulfil its
obligation in such a way that the academic freedom of the faculty staff is not recognized, even
if there is no absolute academic freedom. The researchers have to do research in the field of
their employment and function within the quality standards of their specific academic field.
Within these constraints, as well as economic constraints, the general principles often invoke
that researchers should be allowed to freely select their research topics, freely develop their
research methodology and be free to publish their research results.
The faculty staff do not always prefer increased institutional autonomy. In countries where the
state has guaranteed academic freedom or research freedom in the legislation, it might be that
the faculty staff hold more trust in the state than in their own leadership. There might also be a
risk if the faculty staff do not realize the diversified role higher education institutions have to
play in a modern society and ignore the interchange with the society. The consequences from
such behaviour might be reactions from the surrounding society, possibly leading to reduced
academic freedom or reduced institutional autonomy.
There are also risks linked to the existence of certain external research funding. A researcher
might be so interested in getting funded from whatever sources, that the integrity of
researchers as well as the institution is not fully considered. Therefore, clear internal rules
securing the integrity, is important.
The integrity of higher education institutions must be upheld by the academic leadership. This
includes both academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Internally well anchored
institutional profiles and strategy are important means in order to avoid interference and
distrust from outside, not least from local and regional governments. Another important
means is a democratic and involved leadership. A leadership and a faculty staff with interest
in and interaction with the surrounding society, at the same time as they have a strong
awareness of the academic values, also facilitates the integrity of institutions and researchers.
The integrity of higher education institutions must also be recognized by governments if they
really want their higher education sector to contribute to the development of their societies.
The universities are important institutions in contributing to an open debate and new
knowledge in society and are thereby also a fundamental part of a democratic society. A way
forward is a “high trust strategy”, based on responsive as well as responsible institutions.
3