Category: Uncategorized (Page 10 of 34)

I have just returned from an overnight meeting with the University Board. Once each semester we have a slightly longer meeting. This gives us time for strategic discussions, presentations of ongoing work, follow-up and in-depth analysis. These are the sorts of things there is not always time for at the ordinary meetings. This time we met in a sunny Sigtuna. As always, the key question is: how should we develop the University’s education and research? How can we strengthen the position of Uppsala University in society and increase our capacity for strategic renewal at every level? How should we approach issues such as academic freedom, autonomy, self-determination, integrity, collegiality, leadership and student influence?

Over the past few years, the University’s management team has pursued clear strategic priorities by various means. There has been quality and quality assurance and enhancement systems, skills development, careers and working environment, internationalisation and infrastructure. Lately we have added sustainable development as a further strategic priority. We have had special programmes in several of these areas and are now working on integrating them into our new mission, goals and strategies document. During our two-day meeting we received follow-up reports on several of the programmes.

Quality and quality enhancement are an integral part of education and research at Uppsala University and a strategic priority. The University Board adopted a Programme for Quality Work at Uppsala University in April 2008. The Quality Advisory Board has conducted a follow-up of the programme under the leadership of Chief Quality Assurance Officer Åsa Kettis. The meeting began on Wednesday with Åsa describing our system of educational evaluations, and presentations from the various disciplinary domains gave us a picture of their activities in this area. Åsa also updated us on what is being done to take the findings of the Q&R17 research evaluation into account.

The University Board also received a status report on Development Plan 2050. This is a three-year project focusing on the University’s physical development and shape that has now reached the half-way point. The project addresses a range of issues. How should our learning environments be designed? What research infrastructure needs does the University face? How should we ensure safety and security? How should we get from one part of the University to another? How should we approach sustainability? Where and how can the University expand and grow? Several workshops and open seminars have been held. Proposals on specific goals and plans are beginning to take shape. It is going to be exciting to see how all this progresses.

We also had an opportunity to discuss the latest draft of our mission, goals and strategies document. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg gave us a progress report. Three members, Ulla Achrén, Roland Roberts and Carl Anderson Kronlid, were given an opportunity to share their initial reflections before we opened the floor for discussion. There were numerous constructive comments, giving Anders and the working group food for thought as they continue their work. The document will return to the University Board in June before being circulated internally in the University for comments and then hopefully returning once more to the University Board for a decision in December. To be continued.

The University Board also provides the members of the administrative board of Uppsala University Foundations Management of Estates and Funds. Uppsala University Foundations Management of Estates and Funds currently manages 604 foundations. The returns on these foundations go to research, scholarships, the University Library, academic ceremonies and more besides. The foundations enable us to keep the Linnaean Gardens open and our collections accessible to researchers, students and the public. Moreover, without them we could not guarantee housing for our international students. Academy Treasurer and Managing Director Kent Berg was at hand, along with the board of Uppsala University Foundations Management of Estates and Funds to present himself and the operations.

On Thursday we had our ordinary meeting. As usual, it began with the Vice-Chancellor’s report on events since the previous meeting (PPTX, in Swedish).

Next on the agenda were Internal Audit’s annual report and a report on the management of resources in our education activities. We also had a first discussion of the operational plan for 2020, led by Planning Director Daniel Gillberg. The University Board is due to adopt the plan in June. We then moved on to a discussion of our proposed consultation response to the Inquiry on Governance and Resources. Many good comments came in. The draft will now be circulated internally to enable the faculties and disciplinary domains to submit their comments before the University Board delivers its response at the end of June. So the discussion will continue.

A working group led by the Chair of the University Board is working on revising the University’s rules of procedure. This is a major and far-ranging undertaking. The upcoming second round of consultations will give the disciplinary domains, faculties and departments a chance to have their say. After the comments have been collated, the University Board hopes to be able to take a decision on new rules of procedure in the autumn.

We then had a presentation on the follow-up of the Programme for Sustainable Development by Tom Pettersson of the Planning Division, and a presentation of the follow-up of the Programme for Internationalisation by Ellen Sjöholm, also of the Planning Division. Both these areas are strategic priorities of relevance for the University’s future development. The follow-ups were produced by the Advisory Board for Sustainable Development and the Advisory Board for Internationalisation. The University Board noted that the University has made major advances in both areas.

The meeting concluded with a decision by the University Board to appoint Caroline Sjöberg as new University Director. She will take up her position on 1 October. We wish Caroline a warm welcome.

Many major issues and matters of principle were up for discussion at this meeting in preparation for decisions that will be taken later this year. It is invigorating to engage in discussion – to let different opinions encounter one another – as we did over these two days. I believe that this leads to better decisions for the entire University.

Today we submitted our consultation response to the report of the Internationalisation Inquiry “Ökad attraktionskraft för kunskapsnationen Sverige” (“Making Sweden more attractive as a knowledge nation”, Swedish Government Official Reports 2018:78), an important and eagerly awaited report that takes up many strategic issues for the future of the sector. It has been a good process: inquiry chair Agnetha Bladh has kept up a close, ongoing dialogue with higher education institutions (HEIs) in Sweden and the report contains many highly relevant and well-reasoned proposals and recommendations. However, that does not mean we agree with everything or that there is nothing we miss.

Let us first recall some important general comments that we made on the first interim report, which the final report still does not adequately address.

Swedish HEIs need greater freedom of action and authority to make their own decisions in international matters. We have, and have always had, many close contacts around the world and the obstacles that crop up in our regular activities are obvious to us. Here the inquiry has not come up with satisfactory proposals on the way ahead. It offers no changes in some areas that we ought to be able to take for granted, like joining international networks without asking the government. This was a problem that came up a few years ago when we joined The Guild, a university network that is strategically important for us.

The inquiry report still does not discuss the importance of research infrastructure for internationalisation in any depth. It contains many proposals on education, but there are significant challenges in the area of research and these call for more attention. Research infrastructure is expensive, technically advanced and very much requires good opportunities for international collaboration.

Many measures still need to be taken to meet the goal that 25 per cent of all students will have spent at least three months abroad by 2025. Among other things, the national study administration systems must better reflect travel in connection with placements and degree projects.

It is good that the inquiry highlights the need to increase awareness of Sweden as a knowledge nation. It’s high time.

In the current revision of our mission, goals and strategies document, we note that the University operates in a global context characterised on the one hand by various types of partnerships and exchanges, and on the other hand by competition for talent and resources. Internationalisation is a strategy that supports the University’s development and helps enhance the quality and relevance of our education and research. And we have come a long way. We are building up new partnerships, for example, one of the largest research cooperation ventures between Sweden and South Africa, SASUF, and we have submitted an expression of interest in developing a European university network (EUN), together with our colleagues in U4. Moreover, we see a great increase in the number of fee-paying students who want to study here. We are working in these areas at all levels of the University.

We HEIs drive our own process of internationalisation and, this being so, it would be a mistake to continue to build on the current system of offices of innovation and science at Swedish embassies abroad, as the inquiry proposes. In organisational terms, these offices belong to the Government Offices, far from where internationalisation takes place in real life. To be sure, the inquiry proposes a pilot project in which two new offices would be set up closely linked with the ‘internationalisation platform’ that it proposes should be constructed in Sweden – and that these would subsequently be evaluated, together with the issue of which entity should be in charge. But that is not enough. To begin with, the pilot project should include HEIs’ own initiatives, such as our office in Hanoi, Vietnam, and Karolinska Institutet’s office in Hong Kong. These offices have substantial experience.

In addition, the link to the platform in Sweden would not result in HEIs having any significant influence. It is good that the inquiry underlines how desirable it is to bring about national coordination and collaboration on strategic internationalisation. We agree entirely. However, we have objections to the composition of the steering group for the platform, with government agencies mainly directing activities, while HEIs would have two representatives. If this proposal goes through, the higher education institutions will more or less be reduced to acting as implementers of orders from the steering group. Moreover, given the role of the Swedish Higher Education Authority as a supervisory authority, it is quite inappropriate that it should also have a role in the steering group for the platform.

We are happy about several parts of the inquiry report, for example, the proposal to further develop the Swedish system of scholarships for third country students. This is necessary. In the long run, having more international students can improve the quality and breadth of the courses and programmes we offer, not least at Master’s level. The proposal would give us increased control over scholarships from the Swedish Council for Higher Education, which is a good thing, and we are positive to the ‘flagship scholarships’ linked to strong research environments. However, it is a challenge to identify these environments and to ensure that the scholarships are long term. It takes time to embed new offers.

We are sceptical about the proposal that we should be allowed to use 0.3 per cent of our direct government funding for education for reducing tuition fees. Every krona of our direct government funding is needed to guarantee the quality of our core activities, which are already stretched financially. It would be preferable to be able to make certain reallocations within the framework of our income from fees.

In many respects, this inquiry has put its finger on the most important points, and we now look forward to it being translated into actual reforms.

(See also what we wrote when the inquiry presented its report in October 2018.)

The Higher Education Act states that in their operations, universities and other higher education institutions must “promote sustainable development to assure for present and future generations a sound and healthy environment, economic and social welfare, and justice.”

The most important contribution Uppsala University makes to sustainable development is through our students and our researchers. Educational initiatives such as the Joint Nordic Master Programme in Environmental Law, the course Global Challenges and Sustainable Futures, and the Master Programme in Sustainable and Innovative Natural Resource Management, provide our students with knowledge and tools to tackle sustainability issues on a scientific basis.

All our outstanding research in areas such as battery and solar cell research, earth sciences, antibiotic resistance, environmental law, and peace and conflict research gives us unique opportunities to contribute to new solutions to current and future challenges. We are conducting exciting research projects on the environment and conflicts, sustainable IT, water purification, sustainable and renewable energy conversion, natural disasters and climate change (extreme weather in coastal zones), pharmaceutical residues in drinking water and global health – to name a few examples.

Östergarnsholm measuring station. Photo: Stefan Osterwalder

Uppsala University Sustainability Initiatives is a new project for multi- and interdisciplinary research initiatives focusing on sustainability. The first of these initiatives, named Climate Leadership in Society and Higher Education, is under development. The Centre for Natural Disaster Science – an exciting collaboration between Uppsala University, the Swedish Defence University and Karlstad University – aims to contribute to an improved capacity to prevent and deal with risks in society, nationally and internationally. Our University also has a climate professorship, thanks to a generous donation from alumnus Niklas Zennström. The third holder of the visiting professorship, Keri Facer, will take up her position shortly.

Much is happening in other areas as well. On Gotland, a learning lab has been established for building up knowledge about sustainable development and the often complex and sometimes controversial issues involved.

Campus Gotland also hosts interdisciplinary research projects on sustainable tourism, sustainable management of the cultural heritage and energy engineering. In Uppsala, the Centre for Environment and Development Studies (CEMUS), established many years ago, seeks to contribute to a just and sustainable world through student-led education.

The University cooperates closely with Uppsala Municipality on sustainable planning. The climate change leadership node (CCL) is conducting a project on carbon budgets with municipalities and counties. The University has decided to take on a large number of the challenges defined in the Uppsala Climate Protocol, which range over several areas. The aim is to radically reduce the University’s direct climate impact by 2030.

We must practise what we preach. Our buildings are mostly managed by Akademiska Hus and we have started a process of conversion that covers everything from lighting to heating, in collaboration with them and other property owners.

The University has ensured that the foundations and management organisations that we are in a position to influence make ethically and environmentally responsible investments.

In our day-to-day activities, we are seeking to change the organisation of our meetings. The University is going to begin using the tool Zoom, which we hope will make it even easier to hold video-link and online meetings. We do not always need to meet in real time and real space, real time may be enough. The new technology offers opportunities that are not only emission-free but also improve our quality of life. What we eat and how our food is produced also plays a role for both our health and the climate. These days, it goes without saying that all restaurants operating on our premises offer vegetarian food. We always include sustainability specifications in new procurement proceses.

I know that many people want to do more and we want to take advantage of all the good initiatives that come from our students, researchers and employees. Two people with important roles to play are Professor Anna Rutgersson, Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor on Sustainability Issues, and Environmental Director Karolina Kjellberg. They can help the University to foreground solutions for sustainable development and highlight proposals to reduce our impact on the environment and climate. One dimension of this work is the new environmental objectives that we have just adopted and that will apply over the next three years. The common denominator of these objectives is that it should be easy to do the right thing for the environment and climate.

One action that I like to highlight is the International Office’s ‘Take the train’ initiative, in which Uppsala students can apply for EU-funded scholarships if they opt to take the train to their exchange studies destination. Another initiative is the reuse project that the Buildings Division has conducted since the move to the Segerstedt Building. Many small steps can add up to a big difference.

Uppsala University has a clear and important role – we will continue to contribute knowledge to enable the transformation of society to proceed on a scientific basis. In this way, we will fulfil our goal of contributing to a better world. Let us all do this – together.

(Swedish post published 7 March.)

For several years now, there has been widespread and – to be honest – rather noncommittal discussion on Open Access to scientific publications. Research results should be published in forms that make them freely available, particularly when they derive from publicly funded research. Generally speaking, all stakeholders are in agreement on this. In the latest Swedish research bill, the government writes that “the goal is to implement a full transition to Open Access to research results, including scholarly publications, artistic works and research data, within 10 years” (Govt bill 2016/17:50, p. 107).

In the past few months, an intense debate on the subject has flared up in Sweden and other countries. The transition to Open Access is suddenly surrounded by unresolved problems and sharp, fundamental conflicts between different objectives. This debate is important. No one is against Open Access as such. However, implementing a successful transition to Open Access requires clarity (which problem or problems are we trying to solve?), respect for the freedom of research (in Sweden, researchers have a statutory right to freely choose how and where they publish) and awareness that well-designed scholarly publication systems are an important dimension of the in-built quality assurance systems in research (through peer review prior to publication).

The issue has been brought to a head by Plan S, which was presented in September 2018. The plan is endorsed by a number of heavyweight research funding bodies, primarily in Europe, who have joined forces in ‘cOAlition S’. Put simply, Plan S states that from 2020 on, all research funded by these funding bodies must be published in a way that guarantees Open Access to the publications from day one. At the same time, cOAlition S dismisses the ‘hybrid’ model for Open Access. In January, an implementation plan was presented that contains some clarifications.

In Sweden, Formas (the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning), Forte (the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare) and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences) chose last autumn to endorse Plan S. The Swedish Research Council supports the basic ideas in the plan, but has refrained from joining it because of the tight timetable.

On one level, we all agree. Openness is intrinsic to the very nature of research. Research results are published precisely so that they can circulate and be read and discussed by and with other researchers in academia and beyond, and where relevant by the general public.

At another level, opinions are sharply divided. This is especially true of attitudes to the current publication landscape. In most fields of research, there is a deeply rooted consensus regarding which are the leading journals, and scientists and scholars throughout the world endeavour to publish their best articles in them. Success in publishing in such journals can make or break an academic career. Far from all of these journals currently meet the Open Access requirements made by Plan S. Some of them, though not all, are owned by the major publishing houses whose quasi-monopolistic positions and constantly increasing prices rightly arouse our indignation.

Plan S attempts to achieve a global and universal transition to a new business model in all academic publishing, in which journals charge those who publish articles instead of those who read them. No one knows at this point whether this model has any chance of establishing itself globally. This is one of the problems.

Two powerful interests are set against each other – heavyweight research funding bodies in one corner and dominant media conglomerates in the other. Those who are caught in between are the individual scholars, who would like to publish openly but above all want to publish in the channels that give their research results the widest circulation and highest status, and that best contribute to their chances of establishing themselves as independent researchers and moving forward in their academic career, whether in Sweden, Europe or some other part of the world.

So far, universities have not played a prominent role in the debate. We probably should. And our basic position should then be that, while continuing to respect the freedom of research, we support a transition to Open Access that contributes to quality and relevance, and oppose proposals that limit the freedom of research and/or undermine its quality and relevance.

From this perspective, we, the senior academic leadership of Uppsala University, see four objections to Plan S, apart from the unreasonable timetable.

1. Plan S jeopardises the freedom of research
An important part of the freedom of research is that scholars have the right to freely choose how and where they publish. In Sweden this right is even enshrined in law. Plan S threatens this fundamental freedom, which ultimately serves the common good.

2. Plan S only solves parts of the problem
The plan attempts to solve several problems, which may actually have different solutions. The aim is to achieve lower costs, more innovation and Open Access to research results for taxpayers. Plan S stakes out a path that, if followed, will indeed provide Open Access, but does not guarantee lower costs and has unclear implications for innovation and quality. The arguments that this path is the sole solution are not convincing.

3. Plan S underestimates the issue of quality
Effective publication systems drive quality, and academic career progress builds to a considerable extent on publishing in effective channels. Plan S underestimates the value of the investment made over time, ultimately by the research community as a whole, to establish top-quality journals. When assessing research expertise, it is wrong to attach decisive importance to over-simplified indicators such as the impact factor of specific journals. However, it would be equally wrong to completely ignore the question of whether scholarly work is published in journals with rigorous quality criteria or in channels that are characterised by anything but those qualities. One side-benefit of the current publication systems is that they have contributed to the growth of the standardised publication databases that, in turn, provide the foundation for bibliometric analysis. Plan S risks skewing publication and citation patterns in ways that will affect the possibility of making fair bibliometric comparisons.

4. Plan S confronts researchers with conflicting objectives
It is barely overstating the case to say that by threatening to impose sanctions and cancel grants, the research funding bodies behind Plan S have chosen to make scholars weapons in the battle against journals and publishers. Plan S confronts the individual scholar with unreasonable conflicts between objectives.

There is no denying that Plan S has brought the issue of Open Access to a head, which is good. That said, the approach chosen has fundamental problems. We should instead attempt together to create change in what in fact is an interconnected system of research funding bodies, scholars and editorial boards/publishers, which has taken shape over a long period of time. In reality, well-qualified scholars, overwhelmingly based at our universities, contribute to all parts of the system: as experts or members of the bodies established by research funders to decide on grants, as conductors of research and authors of scholarly publications, and as experts or editors in the journals that publish scholarly work.

If we are to achieve a good transition to Open Access, we need forums for common action to change the system, not shock therapy, which risks undesired side-effects. And instead of being committed to a single path forward, we should encourage a diversity of paths to Open Access. We would like to encourage the Swedish funding bodies that have endorsed Plan S to consider this.

At the time of writing, the news has come that Riksbankens Jubileumsfond has reconsidered its position and announced that, although it intends to stay in cOAlition S and its general campaign for Open Access, it no longer endorses Plan S in its present form. A brave and sensible decision in the present situation.

Eva Åkesson, Vice-Chancellor
Anders Malmberg, Deputy Vice-Chancellor
Katarina Bjelke, University Director
Stellan Sandler, Vice-Rector
Torsten Svensson, Vice-Rector
Johan Tysk, Vice-Rector

The Management Council has just visited Aarhus University in Jutland, Denmark. Our colleagues in Aarhus had prepared a busy programme for us. To begin with, Pro-Rector Berit Eika presented the university and current developments in research policy.

In the mid-2000s, the 20 universities in Denmark were merged to create eight larger universities. The university has campuses in Aarhus, Copenhagen and Herning, and research at another ten or so locations – including on Greenland. Aarhus University now has 39,000 students, 8,000 employees and a turnover of EUR 884 million. The city of Aarhus has 350,000 inhabitants. Both the city and the university are therefore somewhat larger than Uppsala.

Last year, the Danish government launched a new higher education policy, with a number of different reforms. The aim is to increase access to higher education throughout the country. They intend to do this by creating local ‘learning centres’. They also want to strengthen the link between education and the labour market and reduce the number of international students. In total, the number of places for international students in the country will be reduced by 1,000.

Like us, Aarhus University is in the midst of drawing up new strategies for the university. The focus areas are familiar from our discussions at home: internationalisation, collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation. The strategies will be finalised this autumn, if all goes according to plan.

Uppsala and Aarhus are both members of several international university networks, including The Guild, Coimbra and the Southern African–Nordic Centre. We had an interesting discussion on how to best use the networks in which we cooperate.

After that, we were given a presentation of the Dual Careers project. The project aims to enable elite student athletes to combine sport and study, and entrepreneurs to combine entrepreneurship and study. This has required flexibility on the part of departments and the administration, more study guidance, mentors from within and outside the university, joint planning and follow-up. The hope is that some of the outcomes of the project may benefit more students.

Ten years ago, the eight universities in Denmark and the Danish Ministry of Education together established a Danish–Chinese education and research centre in China. The Executive Director of the Sino-Danish Centre, Morten Laugesen, described developments. With support from the Danish business sector, they were able to construct a building that now houses education and research facilities, but also provides 20 apartments for teachers and researchers. It is intended as an equal partnership, despite great differences, with 50/50 involvement of both parties. One consequence of this is that all projects involve both a researcher or teacher from China and one from Denmark. To date, about 1,000 students, 220 researchers and more than 160 doctoral students have participated in the Centre.

We were treated to a real Danish breakfast in the canteen at Kemikum – smörrebröd (open-faced sandwiches). After lunch there was time for the Vice-Chancellor to have one-on-one talks with the Rector of Aarhus University, while the rest of the delegation had a walk aorund the campus and the University Park.

The physical environment at Aarhus University is characterised by yellow brick, Danish architecture and design. They also have a large collection of modern art which is on view around the campus. We paid a visit to a brand new life sciences laboratory, the Skou Building, named after Professor Jens Christian Skou, who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1997.

The visit concluded with a presentation of Campus 2.0 and the university’s digitisation strategy. Particularly interesting for us, in view of our Uppsala University 2050 project and our work on University-wide IT. Aarhus University has agreed on principles for the development of the physical environment, for example, sustainability, strengthening the connection between education and research, and meeting places such as cafés and convenience stores. The plans for the conversion of the old hospital area are impressive and it will be interesting to follow their progress.

Many thanks to our colleagues in Aarhus for sharing your experiences so generously with us and for an inspiring day.

At the end of last week, we had a deans meeting in the Humanities Theatre. Once per semester, the deans, vice-deans, vice-rectors, deputy vice-rectors, advisers to the Vice-Chancellor, heads of administrative divisions, the University Director, the Vice-Chancellor and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor gather for discussions. Altogether, there are about fifty of us. In the spring semester we spend a whole day together and in the autumn we have a lunch-to-lunch away day.

Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg’s presentation in the Humanities Theatre.

On these occasions, we take up topical issues. I began the meeting on Thursday by presenting ongoing developments in the University. After that, we continued with a discussion on academic leadership led by Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg. What does it mean to be elected by faculty colleagues? Is there scope for strategic development work? What does it mean to be a line manager or a non-line manager? How does one exercise management in an organisation of peers? Four individuals with management roles had been asked to talk about their responsibilities and their leadership and to reflect on strengths and challenges. The four were Mats Hedenius, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, Eva Tiensuu Janson, Vice-Dean for Research in the Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Peter Lindblad, Vice-Dean for Collaboration in the Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology, and Cecilia Wejryd, Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor on Equal Opportunities. They all generously shared their experiences. The discussion that followed will be continued. It could be a topic for the autumn away day.

University Director Katarina Bjelke then gave an overview of changes in support activities in recent years. The vigorous expansion of education and research has made new and increased demands on the University Administration as well. Changes in our environment and society also affect us, for example in terms of security, digitalisation and internationalisation. Many development projects are currently underway in the administration.

The morning continued with a thorough account of the government inquiry on governance and resources, given by Planning Director Daniel Gillberg. The University Board is due to submit the University’s response to the inquiry by 24 June. Our internal process has started and will continue with a seminar on 18 March in the University Main Building, which everyone interested is welcome to attend. For further information, see the Events list on the University website.

Finding solutions to the major challenges and issues in society requires a wide range of knowledge and expertise. Uppsala University is a comprehensive university offering subjects from languages to engineering and technology. How can we make the most of our great breadth? What barriers exist to cooperation across subject, faculty and domain boundaries? These were some of the questions that the afternoon discussion began with. We had presentations on three of our research centres. Claes Fredrik Helgesson presented the Centre for Integrated Research on Culture and Society (CIRCUS), Eva Garmendia told us about Uppsala Antibiotic Center (UAC) and Thomas Schön told us about the multidisciplinary centre for artificial intelligence (AI) that he is in the process of building up. Starting points, structures and organisations differ and the centres also differ in how far they have come in their development. UAC has been going for several years, CIRCUS has just begun, while the AI centre has not yet taken shape. Some similarities also emerged. Åsa Kettis presented some of the programmes that operate across subject boundaries. In the debate that followed, we concluded that more could be done to facilitate internal cooperation both in education and in research.

The topic of the final session of the day was the new Mission and Core Values document. Many different parts of the University, faculty boards and advisory boards have provided input. The deans meeting had received the latest version to read in advance. The discussion focused on the degree of specificity, ranking, target group and length of the document. However, everyone agreed that the proposal was well on the way. Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg, who is leading the process of revision, will take the views of the deans meeting into account. The proposal will be referred for internal consultation later this year.

All in all, it was a good day. The Humanities Theatre is an excellent venue for internal meetings as well. We look forward to continued discussions on several of the issues, perhaps at the next deans meeting. On Tuesday the Management Council will visit Aarhus University in Denmark. It will be interesting to see how they work on their Mission and Core Values, cooperation across subject boundaries, strategic development and academic leadership.

At Wednesday’s meeting of the University Board, the annual report was on the agenda and it was time to sum up 2018. As always, there is much to be proud of at our University!

The number of applicants per place remained high in 2018, indeed, more qualified applicants applied to Uppsala University than to any other higher education institution in Sweden. Our international Master’s programmes continued to attract more students – the number of students admitted in the autumn was nearly 20 per cent higher than in 2017. Campus Gotland continues to develop. This year we celebrated the fifth anniversary of our merger and we have more students on campus than ever. Many international students have found their way to Visby, where several research initiatives have been launched.

Work on sustainable development has intensified during the year. Uppsala University Sustainability Initiative (UUSI) was launched and will develop a number of multidisciplinary research platforms. Our collaboration agreement with Uppsala Municipality was revised to focus on sustainable urban management. The University had a successful year in the competition for funding from the Swedish Research Council’s open calls. Thirty-two projects won approval from the EU Framework Programme Horizon 2020 and we received several grants from the European Research Council (ERC).

Our various networks are foregrounding the role of the university in the world and in 2018 we prepared an application for the pilot round of the European Universities Initiative, together with the U4 network and the University of Tartu – an important strategic initiative to position ourselves in Europe. The joint application will be submitted at the end of February and we can expect a decision at the end of the summer. The year also featured productive meetings in the internationalisation projects SASUF and MIRAI, in which we are working with other Swedish higher education institutions to strengthen contacts with counterparts in South Africa and Japan respectively. We were represented at conferences, meetings and fairs in every corner of the world, and the world came to us as well. UN Secretary-General António Guterres visited Uppsala in April to give a well-attended Dag Hammarskjöld Lecture.

Project 2050 started during the year – a project on planning for our spatial development. The ground was broken for the extension of Ångström Laboratory, a project that aims to enhance the creative interdisciplinary environment for research and education in natural sciences, engineering and information technology. So as I have said, we had an eventful year to sum up and also noted that 2018 was the year in which our income broke the SEK 7 billion mark. The budget input for 2020–2022 that will form the basis of our upcoming dialogue with the Ministry was discussed and approved. Internal Audit had several reports on the agenda and the government inquiry on governance and resources was presented to the University Board members. In my Vice-Chancellor’s report, I concentrated on the skills supply project we are now starting – I will have more to say about this project in the blog later in the spring.

(Original Swedish post published 1 February 2019.)

Today (1 February) the Inquiry on Governance and Resources delivered its 468-page final report. Here are a few spontaneous reactions based on a quick perusal.

Most of the arguments and proposals are in line with the inquiry’s communications along the way, in its framework proposals and presentations. This means that our earlier view – that the starting points and rhetoric are in keeping with what we would like, though some of the proposals may have negative consequences – remains unchanged.

The entire inquiry is underpinned by a number of key concepts: trust, academic freedom, freedom of action, less micro-management, a long-term perspective and clarification of collegial influence. The inquiry writes about strengthening the freedom of education and the need to clarify the scope for faculty members to influence processes and decisions. These are principles that we whole-heartedly endorse. The close links between education and research are emphasised. This is also a good principle. One expression of this is that the inquiry proposes a single higher education bill.

The inquiry also contains proposals intended to strengthen the long-term perspective and planning possibilities. Four-year planning frameworks might certainly be a good idea. However, we remain sceptical about four-year agreements between higher education institutions and the government based on a dialogue. The idea is that this will make it possible to reward every institution’s strengths and to replace the general targets for higher education with more tailored tasks. Of course stable planning conditions are basically a good thing, but it is hard to imagine that the politicians will refrain from interfering with education for four years. Moreover, these agreements are on top of the annual appropriation directions, they would not replace them. For each higher education institution, the agreements will “formulate goals and follow-up criteria for a number of areas with political priority” (p. 19). What we are concerned about is that this paves the way for political micro-management and an unclear division of responsibilities between the university board and the government. We need to study the effects of this part of the proposal more closely.

Otherwise, the most radical proposals concern the principles determining the allocation of resources by central government. Under the inquiry’s proposal, research and education will not be treated as two separate activities, but rather as a single activity, and the higher education institutions will have free control over a combined funding allocation, although the portions for research and education will be calculated separately.

Particularly on the educational side, the inquiry’s proposals would entail a substantial change. At present, the higher education institutions receive a funding ceiling and then compensation for the number of full-time equivalent students (FTEs) and annual performance equivalents, with different standard price tags for different educational areas. The inquiry proposes that the institutions should instead receive a funding allocation for education and a funding agreement target formulated as the total number of FTEs that the institution is expected to enrol. In other words, half of the funding allocation for education will be fixed, and half calculated by the number of FTEs. The current system of calculating part of the funding on the basis of how many credits the students earn (annual performance equivalents) would be eliminated. One of the arguments given for doing this is the desire to reward life-long learning, in which the degree of performance has traditionally been lower.

The starting value in the transition to the new model would be that each institution’s funding allocation for education would match the current funding ceiling, and the target would be based on the current number of FTEs. This presumably means that the institutions, in practice, would have different implicit average price tags (funding allocation for education/FTE) depending on the combination of price tags it has had in the past. The impact this might have on the ability/incentive of higher education institutions to renew the range of programmes they offer bears thinking about.

The higher education institutions have wanted an inquiry into these matters. Uppsala University submitted input with comments and reactions last March, as described in this blog post. Our most general objection then and now is perhaps that we would have liked the inquiry to take a more fundamental approach to the issue of autonomy. The report that came out today talks about the need for less micro-management, the need for responsibility to lie with the higher education institutions and the fact that capacity planning decisions “have not infrequently been characterised by what we consider to be excessively short-term thinking”. We agree with the description but do not share all the conclusions.

In conclusion, we observe that the inquiry led by Pam Fredman has covered extensive ground. There are many more proposals than those we have mentioned here. We will study this important inquiry closely at our University. We look forward to the consultation process and will hold an open seminar on 18 March in the University Main Building, lecture hall IX. To be continued.

(Original Swedish post published 25 January 2019.)

Today we celebrate scholarship at this year’s Winter Conferment Ceremony at Uppsala University. We began early this morning with the traditional cannon salute from the Castle hill and the ringing of the Cathedral bell. As usual, gunners from Jämtlands fältartilleri are firing the cannon salute.

The day’s events follow a strict programme. The Conferment Ceremony in the Grand Auditorium starts at 12:00. Cannon salutes continue during the ceremony, to honour the faculties, the 90 graduating doctors and our 19 honorary doctors, who come up to the stage to receive the tokens of their new status – laurel wreaths, doctoral hats and diplomas – accompanied by music performed by the Royal Academic Orchestra. At the Winter Conferment Ceremony, the University also awards numerous prizes. This year we have 11 prizewinners, who are being recognised for their contributions and commitment to knowledge.

The titles of the graduating doctors’ theses reflect the breadth and diversity of the University. The topics range from systems for space propulsion to the history of Swedish Jews and the victims of Nazi terror, the complexities of childbirth, male friendship, matter–antimatter interactions, and the genesis of a new Swedish Bible translation. You can read more about the ceremony, the doctoral theses and the prizes in the Conferment Ceremony book. The book also contains autobiographical notes by Professor Arvid G. Högbom, in which he writes about the development of the University and science in the early 20th century.

After the ceremony in the Grand Auditorium, celebrations continue at the faculties’ receptions, followed in the evening by a banquet at Uppsala Castle.

The Vice-Chancellor’s speech at the ceremony.

The cannon salute from the Castle at 7 a.m. Photo: Eva Åkesson

Firing in progress! Photo: Annica Alvén

Jämtlands fältartilleri fire the cannons outside the University Main Building.

The University Main Building and park in winter finery. Photo: David Naylor

Students bearing standards lead the procession into the Grand Auditorium. Photo: Annica Alvén

The procession on the way into the Grand Auditorium for the Conferment Ceremony. Photo: Annica Alvén

Read more about the graduating doctors, honorary doctors and the Conferment Ceremony in this year’s Conferment Ceremony book.

Once a year, the Vice-Chancellor’s Management Council spends a whole day at Campus Gotland. We assembled for departure brutally early on Monday morning, but were rewarded by the stunning sight of the blood moon, a celestial phenomenon that astronomers tell us will next recur 10 years from now.

We devoted the morning session to a regular Management Council meeting, with a break to watch the Statement of Government Policy and the presentation of the new ministers. In his statement, the Prime Minister emphasised the importance of research for Sweden as a knowledge nation, and pledged that both free and challenge-driven research will be strengthened. This is good. Education and schools also received a lot of attention. The plans for yet another reform of teacher education are cause for concern – what is really needed is surely a long-term perspective and a chance to get on without being disturbed. Otherwise, the most prominent issues were sustainable development and the environment, health and social care, integration, security and democracy. We also got a new minister for higher education and research, Matilda Ernkrans. We have already invited her to visit us for a presentation of Uppsala University and look forward to a good working relationship.

After the Management Council meeting we had lunch with Campus Gotland’s students’ union Rindi. One of the priorities for both the students’ union and us is student housing with 12-month contracts. One challenge for the students’ union is to adapt its working methods in response to the many new international students.

The afternoon began with a strategic discussion on the development of Campus Gotland. In July it will be six years since the merger and we can say it has been a success story. So far the focus has mainly been on strengthening undergraduate education. Fifteen new degree programmes have started since 2014. Last year we had more than 1,100 students on campus and more than 1,000 distance students. A fifth of the students are international. The University’s only two international Bachelor’s programmes are in game design and are taught on Gotland. More degree programmes will start in the autumn. This is an impressive development. Now the focus is shifting more to issues of strengthening research and research environments. Much has already started and is in progress – sustainable tourism, energy, digitalisation, conservation, Blått centrum (a centre for water-related issues), children’s health. There are plans to launch an interdisciplinary graduate school on the theme of water and energy. If all decisions are taken, a dozen doctoral students placed on Gotland will be admitted in the coming year.

Rapid development generates new challenges. The premises are beginning to feel crowded, larger teaching rooms and more offices are needed. The presence of so many new international students makes new linguistic demands on staff, teachers and students.  We need to improve the technology for distance education as well as opportunities for staff to participate in continuing professional development and meetings.

The merger phase must soon be regarded as over and we are entering a new, more regular phase. The Advisory Board for Campus Gotland has been working on its input to the revision of Uppsala University: Mission and Core Values, and this has raised the issue of Campus Gotland’s ‘special status’. To what extent will we continue to need separate goals, measures and forms of management for Campus Gotland? This is a discussion we need to pursue over the coming year. However, the fundamentals are clear: activities in Visby will be firmly integrated in Uppsala University’s regular structures and quality systems, while ensuring that we take advantage of the unique opportunities for multi- and interdisciplinarity and the development of the cohesive campus environment, and that the activities are clear and transparent to our partners in the Gotland community in which they are set.

The afternoon continued with a meeting with staff at Campus Gotland at which we discussed ongoing developments nationally and internationally, at the University and in the different disciplinary domains.

The day’s last stop was Region Gotland for a meeting with politicians and officials, which has become an annual tradition. The agenda focused on follow-up of our strategic collaboration agreements with the region. We have a good cooperative relationship, which among other things offers our students the chance to do independent degree projects and other projects in various parts of the region’s administration. We saw a presentation of a student project in which our game design students have worked with student health services in the region to develop a game to promote health and wellbeing among students with functional challenges. A student project, an idea, that has potential for development into a product and perhaps a business. Another example is cooperation between the teacher education programme and our 10 partner schools in the region. This gives our students the chance to work one day a week in school, a ‘trainee position’.

After a long day we returned to Uppsala, a bit tired but above all inspired. Campus Gotland has really become an essential and dynamic part of Uppsala University.