Yesterday, I participated in IVA's seminar on the final report of the Control and Resources Inquiry. In addition to investigator Pam Fredman presenting the investigation, a number of different actors were also allowed to comment on the report, including myself as a representative of the students.
The report is an impressive review of the university and the system that governs the sector; Anyone with an interest in Swedish higher education policy should take the time to read the 468 pages. The fourth chapter on principles for effective governance is particularly interesting. The investigators provide a coherent picture of the higher education institutions' special functioning, mission and role in society. They also reason in an initiated way about the driving forces that drive the business forward, and how the balance between autonomy and political governance can make research and education as relevant and high-quality as possible.
The discussion in principle deserves attention in its own right, but will also be important for understanding how the inquiry intends the proposed system to work and how the parts are connected. The sections on academic freedom and the responsibilities that come with it are genuinely interesting. SFS largely shares the principles on which the inquiry bases its system. This means that we believe that the framework presented by the inquiry lays the foundation for a higher education sector that can meet the challenges we see. Erosion, broadened recruitment and gender equality are some areas we can continue to work on based on STRUT's proposals. However, this assumption is based on the fact that only minor adjustments are made and that the framework is accepted at an overall level.
During yesterday's seminar, it became clear that we can not expect any new investigations in the next term. The issues have been investigated several times since the current system was introduced in 1993, and if we want to bring about a change in the near future, it is now the case. STRUT's proposal seems in most respects to be an improvement from today and gives us better conditions for the next 25 years.
Pam and its employees propose a more long-term governance based on a higher education bill that is decided every four years. Based on the bill and the higher education institutions' own strategies, higher education institutions and the ministry must conduct a dialogue to develop goals in certain political areas. It has raised concerns that this could lead to more control. I do not see how the dialogues would lead to more or less possibility of control than today. There are several examples in the near future where politicians have written assignments in the regulatory letters against the will of the higher education institutions and this opportunity will remain with or without dialogues. However, the dialogues open up for more adapted and long-term governance, something that is lacking today.
There is, of course, an interesting discussion to have about regulatory letters and the form of authority, but it is a discussion for another time and demands that should be placed on an investigation with a different purpose than what STRUT had. Do not let the fact that the inquiry could not solve everything trap the good proposals that exist. The inquiry even emphasizes that any future changes in the form of association for the higher education institutions are not hindered by the framework for governance that is presented.
The allocation of resources is proposed to move towards a model where higher education institutions are given more freedom and responsibility; more basic funding, for both research and education, and a combined funding. This can benefit students at all levels within the university. The framework in the resource allocation would provide good conditions for better research connections, clearer career paths within the academy, entire knowledge environments and high quality throughout the education chain. The higher education institutions must also manage the freedom to choose for themselves how they distribute the grants between different educations as the price tags are proposed to be removed. In order not to make it worse for students and doctoral students, this freedom requires that the higher education institutions take their responsibility. The higher education institutions themselves must work for and build structures in order to maintain and develop the norms and the quality culture that is needed within the higher education institution. Here it is also important that the follow-up from UKÄ and the proposed analysis function work.
The doctoral education was not mentioned to any great extent during yesterday and is only mentioned briefly in the investigation. Unlike the education at the undergraduate and advanced level, there are no clear goals to follow up on for the doctoral education. It is therefore extra important that responsibility is taken for doctoral students and their environment. There are several risks in postgraduate education, for example that the dimensioning of postgraduate education is used to manage the economy. Therefore, higher education institutions and politics must take action on postgraduate education, at the same time as follow-up and quality assurance must prioritize the area.
The proposals presented seem to provide a stable framework for long-term governance that provides the right conditions for high-quality research and education. However, this requires higher education institutions to take advantage of the trust and freedom they will gain through the reforms. We students want to be able to give the higher education institutions this confidence and hope we get the right conditions to be both co-developers and reviewers in the new system. In conclusion, I would like to thank Pam Fredman and his staff for an impressive report and a process that led to much-needed discussions inside and outside the sector on the way to the end product!