Academic freedom of doctoral students in Sweden

Introduction

Academic freedom has been discussed lately among academic circles in Sweden, whether it was an UKÄ report ordered by the government, or initiatives and projects of student and trade organisations. While the discussion has been active, rarely an instance specifically discusses academic freedom from the perspective of doctoral students. This is of importance, since academic freedom reflects differently to doctoral students than to the rest of the academic community, and on the other hand, doctoral students as researchers primarily value different details in academic freedom compared to regular students, who are mainly affected by academic freedom via the concept of freedom of education and institutional elements, such as collegial decision-making processes. In this essay-like text I try to bridge the gap and focus primarily on doctoral students. 

I begin by exploring doctoral students’ academic freedom in a legal context, listing limitations imposed in the higher education ordinance. Then, I will describe shortly how UKÄ’s report on academic freedom studied doctoral students’ academic freedom. I follow by comparing the academic freedom of doctoral students in Sweden within the European context. Lastly, I list some general problems experienced by doctoral students that are related to academic freedom.

I would also like to point out that unlike in common discussion, restrictions on academic freedom are not always inherently bad. On the contrary, sometimes restrictions are not only natural but necessary. For example, I would argue that appointing a doctoral student to a supervisor both restricts the students academic freedom by limiting the portfolio of possible research projects to those that the supervisor agrees with, but ultimately is for the benefit of the doctoral students research and learning. That is, one should not read this text where every instance of limiting academic freedom is something I wish to challenge.

Doctoral students’ academic freedom in legal context

Academic freedom of researchers, which includes doctoral students, is protected by the Higher Education Act (Högskolelag (1992:1434), HL). Major differences between academic freedom for doctoral students and other researchers, are from a legal perspective defined in the higher education ordinance (Högskoleförordning (1993:100), HF). 

First of all, doctoral students in Sweden are considered as students and their academic employment is bound by their respective general study plans (allmän studieplan). These are often decided on an institutional level, and their effect on academic freedom is to limit the study plans of a doctoral student and on a minor side, to cement some of the time allocated for research education.

Secondly, doctoral students have to adhere to an individual study plan (ISP). This is a document agreed by both the doctoral student and their supervisor, and it includes the obligations of the doctoral  student and the higher education institution and a timetable for the doctoral student’s study programme. Often it includes more detailed information about the study plan of the doctoral student. Doctoral students are bound to follow the obligations listed in the ISP, whether they consider research projects or studies. This definitely imposes a limitation on one’s academic freedom. However, its connection to the next point makes this limitation clearer.

Doctoral students may get their research resources and supervision withdrawn if they don’t adhere to their ISP. This is often a last resort for a HEI to cancel doctoral students’ means to study, but the mere possibility of revocation is a meaningful threat in itself. There may be other issues involved, as often the supervisor and the doctoral student are not legally trained to consider what types of matters may be problematic in the resource-revocation process, should one arise.

Moreover, doctoral students’ status is determined by the fixed time limit of their contract. Study time in a third-cycle studies in Sweden is 4 years of full-time studies which can be extended up to 8 years under special circumstances. The limited time span, self-evidently, harms the academic freedom of doctoral students although it may be argued that the fixed time is beneficial towards the goal of obtaining a doctoral degree.

Similar problems, for example fixed time limits, naturally consider other researchers that are not doctoral students. Namely, early career researchers and grant-based researchers are in a precarious position similar to doctoral students, for example regarding fixed-time contracts. However, these limitations often stem from outside immediate legislation (HL or HF).

Perceptions of academic freedom in an UKÄ survey

In the UKÄ report Academic freedom in Sweden (Akademisk frihet i Sverige) released in April 2024, doctoral students answered if they felt their academic freedom challenged in Sweden. 42 percent said yes, 26 percent said no, and 33 percent said they don’t know (n=842). Similarly, numbers for a question if they perceived their own academic freedom challenged were 21, 67, and 12 percent (n=842). When asked if they perceived having enough knowledge on academic freedom, the numbers were 38, 36, and 26 percent (n=843). For the question, would you like to learn more about academic freedom were 76, 13, and 10 percent (n=843).

Figure 7 (Figur 7) of UKÄ’s report Akademisk frihet i Sverige. Answers to the question ”Anser du att den akademiska friheten på svenska lärosäten är utmanad idag?”.

Figure 12 (figur 12). of UKÄ’s report Akademisk frihet i Sverige. Answers to the question ”Anser du att din egen akademiska frihet är utmanad idag?”.

These numbers assert the following: a large portion of doctoral students perceive that academic freedom might be challenged in Sweden, they don’t perceive their own academic freedom to be under threat. Moreover,  they lack the tools and the knowledge to analyze their own and Swedens’ situation further, but they nonetheless show interest in the topic of academic freedom. The discrepancy here might be explained by lack of time and resources to be actively involved in a technical discussion that lies outside the scope of their research subjects.

Additionally, compared to the rest of answerer groups, doctoral students highlighted concepts of political steering and research financing. These are matters that affect doctoral students mostly indirectly, as it can be interpreted that doctoral students are not affected by research financing questions between their admittance and graduation. Doctoral students were also overrepresented in agreeing that conformism and dogmatic culture affect their academic freedom. This can be interpreted as being not only linked to your supervisor but also being a junior member of the academic community, where opposing views and non-popular methods may be difficult to convey without the protection of a senior status. 

Doctoral students also were overrepresented in reporting that ethics review processes hindered their academic freedom. This is understandable from a particular view of doctoral students, as long processing times of ethics review applications directly affect what research is possible to conduct within the relatively short time span of 4 years. Moreover,  ethics review may encourage doctoral students to be overcareful in their research plans in lieu of being afraid that a rejected application might be detrimental to their graduation. The ethics review act is, however, being updated as of writing this, to consider some of these issues.

Finally, doctoral students were also overrepresented in evaluating that the phenomenon “pressure to publish” affected their academic freedom. It is unclear from the report whether this considers those doctoral students that do a monograph or a compilation thesis: implications of the claim are very different in the two cases. Moreover, it is unclear whether this refers to the more general trend of academic publishing culture or to the fact that some doctoral students need to publish articles as a part of their examination.

It should be noted that the task given by the Government to UKÄ to compile the report ruled out the concept of academic freedom between the state and HEIs. This means that the report is not meant to exhaustively cover challenges to academic freedom in Sweden. That is, the report might not have examined some forms of political steering and research funding, for example. These matters were, however, discussed, but the scope of the report explains the lack of more thorough research in some aspects.

Comparative academic freedom on an European level

In their article Frameworks for Doctoral Education: Academic Freedom of Doctoral Candidates Across Europe, Pil Maria Saugmann and Hannah Schoch compare academic freedom for doctoral candidates across the European higher education area. In addition to the comparative study, they highlight some general trends in doctoral education. 

They address that recently, political steering by national policies in particular research areas is having an impact on doctoral education. Moreover, this tendency is linked to the concept of brain drain in some countries.

They addressed the following questions: 

  • Academic freedom: Do doctoral candidates have the right to defend their doctoral thesis?; Is the defence procedure transparent?; Do doctoral candidates have the right to supervision?; Do doctoral candidates have the right to change supervisors?
  • Academic self-governance: Do doctoral candidates have the right to elect representatives of their own group to ensure their interests are represented?; Do doctoral candidates belong to one election group?; What election groups do doctoral candidates belong to?
  • Institutional autonomy and the role of public authorities: Does the higher education institution award the doctoral degree?; Can higher education institutions introduce doctoral programmes without the approval of public authorities?; Is there quality assurance of doctoral education at the national level?

In  the above questions, the Swedish doctoral education system ranks YES in all questions, where applicable. Additionally, when asked about the percentage of funded doctoral students and about their access to social security, Sweden stood out in its favour. Moreover, ISP was discussed as an example of an existing method to guide individual studies on a third-cycle level.

However, the right for HEIs to introduce doctoral programmes without a separate approval by public authorities considers only universities (universitet), not högskolor.

From a Swedish perspective it can be concluded that most of the positive answers to the above questions are inherited from the student status of doctoral students, particularly in representational rights of doctoral students. Other particularities are protected by the higher education ordinance. Moreover, from this perspective the Swedish HEIs are relatively autonomous in terms of organizing third-cycle studies.

It is to be noted that the research did not compare countries from a general academic freedom perspective, for example on how academic freedom in Sweden compares to other countries when analyzed through the lenses of political steering, research financing, and so on. For example, in a Nordic comparison, the fact that university boards are still appointed by the government would be quite a peculiar and unwanted form of steering, for example in Finland.

Selected particular topics which have been reported by doctoral candidates to hinder their academic freedom

This section serves as an anecdotal addition and its purpose is to highlight the actual challenges Swedish doctoral students experience with academic freedom. Some of these problems are raised in the UKÄ report discussed above, while some have been reported to me by individual doctoral students or student organisations.

The following concerns have been raised:

  • Pedagogic planning: does the doctoral student, when teaching, have the possibility to fully participate in pedagogical planning? This is restricted by course curricula and similar administrative methods, but majorly doctoral students are able to change such decisions albeit the administrative processes can be slow.
  • Administrative workload: some doctoral students are reporting that they are required to do administrative work outside the scope of departmental duties as addressed in the higher education ordinance.
  • Language: language affects the possibility to participate in a collegial decision-making for doctoral students and also their teaching opportunities, limiting achieved pedagogical learning. 
  • Harassment: harassment is not unknown to all groups within the academic community, but doctoral students can have more serious repercussions due to their precarious nature as junior faculty with a fixed-time contract. This particularly relates to supervision.
  • Supervision: supervision and supervisor naturally restrict doctoral students’ academic freedom. Supervision is, however, not also without benefits, so some restriction of academic freedom imposed by supervision can be justified.
  • Participating in additional research projects: are you as a doctoral student able to freely take on new research projects, even those outside your supervisors influence? Are you able to apply for grants or are these excluded for non-PhDs?
  • Activism and acting as a citizen: can doctoral students as governmental employees participate in protests against the Swedish government or otherwise? Moreover, does this affect their credibility as researchers? One aspect of academic freedom should be that researchers have the full rights of a citizen and that their credibility is not affected by political work or activism. This affects doctoral students as early in their careers they do not have an established academic track record. Moreover, this topic is especially relevant today due to the ongoing Pro-Palestine demonstrations and protests in Swedish academia. In particular, there have been reports of lecture-styled events being perceived as activism and being canceled by their respective HEIs.
  • Migration and international doctoral students: international doctoral students, particularly those from outside the EU and EEA areas have to deal with migration processes during their studies. For example, while renewing their residence permit they are not allowed to participate in conferences or field work outside Sweden: this may drastically affect their ability to research. For international students inside EU and ETA, hindrances may include language and unfamiliarity with Swedish HE structures. At the most drastic example, getting one’s resources withdrawn often leads to deportation for non-EU/EEA doctoral students if it also leads to a termination of one’s contract. Moreover, safety concerns among Sweden have led to seemingly arbitrary denials of residence permits for doctoral students midway through their studies, particularly in STEM-fields.
  • Increased share of private funding: the phenomenon of increased share of private funding may affect selection of research topics and are in part a means to delegate the question of research topic selection from academic communities to private funders. Similarly, for industry doctoral students it may be a pressure from funders to publish results only in line with the funders’ intresses.

On the definition academic freedom

The purpose of this text is to not try to define academic freedom exhaustively. Instead I focus on academic freedom as perceived by doctoral students, and in this sense we generally mean the freedom for doctoral students to choose their research topics and scientific methods, to convey their research results within the academic community and towards the public, and, when applicable, to teach and learn without unreasonable outside influence. Of course, this is quite broad.

The definition becomes more cumbersome when we separate the concept of academic freedom to the academic freedom between the state and the HEIs (for example, considering political steering and research funding) and to academic freedom between the HEI and an individual (for example, internal steering of research, or, quite differently, pressure from public to self censor teaching and or research). In this sense, academic freedom with respect to research is very different from academic freedom with respect to higher education in general.

Moreover, for accurate analysis, one needs to make a distinction between the ideal of academic freedom, legal and formal academic freedom, and the academic freedom that is realized and perceived in the daily life of doctoral students.

Of course, ideals never fully realise in the material world, and thus the academic freedom we feel and see is always a distilled version of the ideal. I mean this both in philosophical and practical terms. For example, in practice, the scarcity of resources and the need for HEIs to organise in any way always obstruct the ideal of absolute freedom: it would be next to meaningless to discuss academic freedom against an ideal world, where every researcher could detach themselves from the mortal life of survival and instead devote themselves fully to research. On a similar note, governmental steering of HE is almost inevitable in a Swedish HE system. While obstructing the ideal of academic freedom, all governmental steering is not hindering research: on the contrary, some steering, funding, and structures might be essential for research communities to work within a society.

Formal and legal academic freedom is how legal structures and other institutional settings guide research and academic life. Finally, the practical academic freedom, while perhaps dull in rigor analysis, can often be the only touch of the concept of academic freedom for most doctoral students. While I may find claims that getting hired to a project restricts academic freedom by reducing the scope of research to that of the project, they can not be ignored when discussing academic freedom as that’s often the only matter perceived regarding academic freedom.

Some structural considerations in Sweden

The 1998 postgraduate education reform professionalised doctoral education in Sweden. The reform introduced the current third-cycle education system in Sweden, which is largely based on 4 year study time which can be extended up to 8 years, together with secured financing. Indeed, the HEI can admit a third-cycle student only if they are fully financed, and by default doctoral study positions are full-time. It can be argued that these changes limited the academic freedom in the sense that the reform limits the students’ ability to undertake research as a part-time hobby and it limits the time for research, possibly hindering research possibilities for those who have a highly experimental, high risk research project with a possibility of not producing tangible results in the given time frame. 

For another example of the cumbersome characteristics to the concept of academic freedom, a reform of 2011 deregulated faculty boards. It has been said that the reform reduced academic freedom of students and staff since as the reform was made, many HEIs in Sweden de-established these traditional collegial decision-making bodies. In this sense, academic freedom was tapered via reducing the possibilities for students and staff to influence within their academic communities. On the other hand, the reform reduced governmental dictation of how HEIs should be structured and thus increased academic freedom of HEIs towards the government. The last argument is often not recognised in Swedish public discussion regarding academic freedom and I would even call it a paradox: more regulated structure is perceived to increase HEIs’ structural freedom.

In a more recent example, ever since the Tidö agreement in 2022, governmental policies have affected academic freedom of doctoral students. 41 % of doctoral students are recruited from abroad. Doctoral students are in a precarious position due to their fixed-time contracts and so are affected by changes in migration policies which were tightened by the Aliens Act in 2022. However, the recent inquiry into better migration rights for researchers, given in December 2024, relaxes some of the problems caused by the 2022 Act. Also given in December 2024, the research bill (forskningspropositionen) gave increased funding to selected fields: this is an example of governmental steering research funding to a select research subjects instead of letting academic communities to divide similar amounts of funding amongst themselves. Moreover, generally increased external funding correlates with fixed term contracts, which affects doctoral students who wish to continue their career in academia. Finally, the proposals by the good conduct investigation (vandelsutredningen) shake the academic freedom of all foreign researchers  in Swedish academia: unclear legal praxis related to possible revocation of one’s residence permit will restrict academic activity.

Closing statements

In this text I briefly discussed the conditions of doctoral candidates from the perspective of academic freedom. It is evident that doctoral students are in a precarious position compared to other researchers, and the Swedish HE system imposes some additional restrictions on doctoral students’ academic freedom.

Additionally, doctoral students appear to think that academic freedom is an important concept, yet they personally don’t see their academic freedom being under threat. It would be important to encourage and guide doctoral students in learning more about academic freedom in order for them to characterize their experiences better.

On a European level, some parts of academic freedom are realized wonderfully for Swedish doctoral students. However, doctoral students in Sweden have many opinions about academic freedom and see the situation in Sweden as not perfect. Finally, limitations on academic freedom may occur particularly in third-cycle studies in numerous ways, depending on the definition or aspect of academic freedom that is being analyzed.

Materials and more reading

Regeringskansliet: Stärkt skydd av den akademiska friheten. https://regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/kommittedirektiv/2025/04/dir.-202542 

UKÄ: Akademisk frihet i Sverige. https://www.uka.se/download/18.427c7de418f38533f7357/1715751054520/Akademisk%20frihet%20i%20Sverige.pdf 

Pil Maria Saugmann and Hannah Schoch: Frameworks for Doctoral Education: Academic Freedom of Doctoral Candidates Across Europe. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-75140-0_26

The Swedish Higher Education Ordinance https://www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/The-Higher-Education-Ordinance/ or https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/hogskoleforordning-1993100_sfs-1993-100/ 

The Swedish Higher Education Act https://www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/The-Swedish-Higher-Education-Act/ or
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/hogskolelag-19921434_sfs-1992-1434

Regeringskansliet: Forskning och innovation för framtid, nyfikenhet och nytta (forskningsproposition) https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/proposition/2024/12/prop.-20242560?mtm_campaign=Proposition&mtm_source=Proposition&mtm_medium=email

UKÄ: Forskarutbildning i närbild. https://www.uka.se/download/18.7691a168188ba06b85c2fd7/1687336591962/Rapport%20Forskarutbildning%20i%20n%C3%A4rbild.pdf 

Regeringskansliet: Skärpta och tydligare krav på vandel för uppehållstillstånd. https://regeringen.se/contentassets/e2992170256b440f9b3e41a380c80e64/skarpta-och-tydligare-krav-pa-vandel-for-uppehallstillstand-sou-202533.pdf 

EUA: How universities can protect and promote academic freedom. https://www.eua.eu/publications/positions/how-universities-can-protect-and-promote-academic-freedom.html 

SAR: Principles for Implementing the Right to Academic Freedom. https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Principles-for-Implementing-the-Right-to-Academic-Freedom_FINAL.pdf

WASSAP: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities (Particularly sections 4.2. and 4.3): https://wassap.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/report_academic-boycott-wassap-2024-copy.pdf