Category: Uncategorized (Page 16 of 34)

(Original Swedish post published 12 December.)

On Tuesday morning, Eva Åkesson had the pleasure of starting the day by deciding which of our researchers and students would receive scholarships worth a total of more than SEK 17 million. These scholarships are made possible by donations to Uppsala University from individuals who wish to support young people, education and research. The money makes a great difference, both to individual people and to the University. In addition to these scholarships, students at Uppsala can also benefit from the plethora of scholarships available from the student nations.

Later in the morning, Uppsala Student Union presented a report on students’ psychosocial health. Mental ill health is a serious problem in society – particularly among young people. This is an important report which provides a good basis for continued work on these issues, which we think are best addressed jointly by students, the Student Health Service and the University as a whole.

Tuesday continued with the last University Board meeting of the semester. The members had braved the weather and made their way to Uppsala from near and far. The agenda consisted mostly of information and discussion items. We had a preliminary discussion on the budget figures that the University has to send to the government in February, and we talked about doctoral education.

The University Board decided to appoint Anders Malmberg Deputy Vice-Chancellor for the next three years. That completes the university management team starting in 2018, the deans, vice-rectors and Vice-Chancellor having been appointed earlier this year.

University management has increasingly become a matter of teamwork. We are ready and eager, as Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor, to continue working together with undiminished vigour for another three years to create conditions for quality and renewal in our research, education and external collaboration.

First of all, though, we must make sure to give the best possible reception to the many Nobel laureates and other guests visiting Uppsala University on Lucia Day. The shadows may brood over our sun-deprived world at this time of year, but tomorrow it will be bright and warm in our well-filled lecture halls.

(Original Swedish post)

Today an important new tradition was launched in the Ihresalen lecture hall at the English Park Campus. Uppsala University held its first annual conference on educational evaluation, with more than 200 participants. The conference will be an annual feature of Uppsala’s new quality assurance system for education.

In Uppsala University’s model of educational evaluation, the responsibility for the design, implementation and follow-up of educational evaluation rests with the disciplinary domain/faculty boards. The model has two components: annual systematic follow-up of education, and educational evaluations by an external reviewer every sixth year. The annual follow-up is part of the domains’ responsibility for the quality of their educational programmes and forms an integral part of the model. The more comprehensive external evaluations are intended to assure and enhance the quality of educational programmes, with the overarching purpose being to achieve the University’s general goal of offering educational programmes of the highest national and international standard. Read the guidelines for the system here (in Swedish).

In February 2018 the faculties will present their plans for the evaluation of all their programmes over a six-year period. Ten pilot evaluations have been carried out in 2017. Experience and results from these pilot evaluations were presented at the conference. Experiences differ in detail but one thing almost all had in common was that the local educational environments had felt strong ownership and felt that the process of working on educational evaluation in itself enhanced quality. The enthusiasm was palpable.

It’s pleasing and promising that a University-wide conference on educational evaluation attracts so many enthusiastic participants. It’s a joy to see teachers, students, directors of studies, degree programme coordinators, senior faculty administrators, deans and others from every part of our broad University working together and exchanging experiences on how we can make our educational programmes even better!

(Original Swedish post published 5 December.)

The Swedish National Audit Office has undertaken a survey and analysis of the agency capital held by higher education institutions. Its report is entitled: “Why are higher education institutions building up capital?” The report was published last week and was presented on Monday during the Higher Education Forum in Linköping. The report gives an instructive account of agency capital and how it comes into being. Overall, it gives a reliable and balanced picture of how the agency capital held by higher education institutions (HEIs) has built up, above all over the past decade, along with some reasonable recommendations to both HEIs and the government.

Agency capital consists of accumulated resources saved by HEIs, deriving from unused government allocations for education and research in past years. Agency capital does not include external funding that has not yet been used. The total agency capital accumulated by the HEIs comes to around SEK 12 billion, which corresponds to 19 per cent of the sector’s annual turnover. In absolute terms, research allocations contribute most to agency capital, but in relative terms, a larger share of education allocations are saved. Agency capital increased most in 2009–2011, when the HEIs were given significant (temporary) additional educational responsibilities, which coincided with major new research funding being made available after the 2008 Research Bill. Since then growth has been more moderate, but has remained at a high level.

The build-up of agency capital is often considered incompatible with efficient use of central government resources. Large accumulations of agency capital mean that central government resources are held unused by HEIs instead of being employed in the sector or used for other state budget priorities. Having said that, it is not unreasonable for HEIs to have a certain buffer for dealing with the uncertainties of complex activities like education and research, and to give them scope to make strategic investments.

Furthermore, the fact that agency capital remains at a high level for several years does not mean that new money remains unused. The example of Uppsala University can serve to clarify this. Between 2012 and 2016, the University’s budget rose from SEK 5.5 billion to SEK 6.6 billion. This means the volume of activities – research and education – increased by an average of SEK 275 million per year during this four-year period. During the same period, the University’s agency capital increased by an average of SEK 56 million per year, from SEK 1.153 billion to SEK 1.378 billion in total. SEK 56 million is less than one per cent of Uppsala University’s total budget. We can therefore conclude that during these four years – a period of rapid expansion, historically speaking – the University managed to use 99 per cent of the research and education appropriations it received each year. It may take a while from a decision to allocate new funding until students are admitted and teachers and researchers employed, but it is wrong to say that resources are being hoarded.

Nevertheless, it is important that universities themselves have control over their agency capital and a strategy for how best to use it, just as it is important that the government has control over and sends clear signals about how HEIs are managing the situation. The National Audit Office report makes some recommendations, which are reasonable on the whole.

The government should ensure clear, strategic and transparent management and follow-up of agency capital at HEIs by developing criteria to assess the size of agency capital based on the needs and situation of individual HEIs.

HEIs should establish a more favourable environment for using agency capital, and should provide more adequate information to the government by ensuring the existence of documentation showing the breakdown of agency capital into reserved and unreserved funds.

The line between these two categories can be quite tricky to draw. Otherwise the National Audit Office’s recommendations are reasonable.

Uppsala University sees its agency capital as a resource to be included in operational planning and budgeting just like other resources. It is reasonable that the University has a certain amount of agency capital so that it can maintain a preparedness for new initiatives, unforeseen events and changes in government instructions. Like the National Audit Office, we consider it important to have a certain buffer, though the University must limit the size of its agency capital.

During the past year, Uppsala University has clarified and tightened up its internal limit values for agency capital. The target for the University’s agency capital is 5–15 per cent of turnover (measured in costs) in research and doctoral programmes and 5–10 per cent in undergraduate and Master’s programmes. The difference is explained by the fact that more than half of research funding comes from fixed-term external funding, while education is largely funded by more predictable government appropriations. The existence of agency capital in different parts of the University should also be taken more clearly into account when assessing proposals for new strategic initiatives.

In each disciplinary domain, the target for agency capital is 0–15 per cent of turnover in research and doctoral programmes, and 0–10 per cent in undergraduate and Master’s programmes. The disciplinary domain/faculty boards set the limits for agency capital at department level.

(Original Swedish post published 2 December.)

Right now, I (Eva) am on my way home from the very successful SANORD conference in Zimbabwe. SANORD (Southern African–Nordic Centre) is a network consisting of 46 partner universities in the Nordic region and southern Africa, which I am chairing in 2017–2018. SANORD was founded in 2007 so the organisation celebrated its 10th anniversary during this year’s conference. Ten years together – from 7 members to nearly 50, with annual conferences, joint research projects, student mobility and an increasing number of joint publications. There are many reasons to feel proud about what we have achieved together during these ten years. Our next meeting will be in Jyväskylä, Finland, in August 2018.

South Africa’s Minister of Science and Technology, Mrs Naledi Pandor

In the weeks leading up to the conference in Zimbabwe, many of us were nervously following political developments and wondering whether we would dare to make the trip or not. Following Mugabe’s resignation and the peaceful transition of power, most participants decided to travel to Zimbabwe anyway, as planned. We were given a warm welcome and our Zimbabwean colleagues very much appreciated our coming to the conference.

Professor Brian O’Connell (former Vice-Chancellor of the University of the Western Cape) and Professor Sigmund Grönmo (former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bergen), who took the initiative for SANORD and were its first two chairs, participated and reflected on the way SANORD has developed over the year and the future outlook. A total of 150 participants from the member universities were present, as well as South Africa’s Minister of Science and Technology, Mrs Naledi Pandor, and the Permanent Secretary of the Zimbabwean Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development, Professor Francis Gudyanga. Zimbabwean media (TV and newspapers) reported from the conference. During the conference, which was on the theme “The role of universities in research & knowledge transfer to improve the livelihoods in Southern Africa”, the South Africa–Sweden University Forum (the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education project that I have written about before in this blog) met to plan its major seminar in Pretoria in May 2018.

Project meeting of the South Africa–Sweden University Forum

The delegation from Uppsala University consisted of 11 people: myself (Eva Åkesson), Professor Sten Hagberg (Forum for Africa Studies and Dept of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology), Professor Birgitta Essén (Dept of Women’s and Children’s Health), Professor Per-Anders Edin (Dept of Economics), Dr Shepherd Urenje (Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development), Dr Peter Sundin (International Science Programme), Rebecca Andersson (International Science Programme) and Gustaf Cars, Oddny Sverrisdottir, Erika Andersson and Ulrica Ouline (all from the International Office).

For questions about SANORD, please contact Ulrica Ouline, ulrica.ouline@uadm.uu.se

For question about South Africa–Sweden University Forum, please contact Gustaf Cars, gustaf.cars@uadm.uu.se

(Original Swedish post.)

In our Mission and Core Values, we state that Uppsala University will have a working environment and leadership characterised by openness, responsibility and trust, an ethical attitude and approach, and activities characterised by equal opportunities. A natural and integral part of this is that all of us – managers, staff and students – treat one another with respect. No forms of harassment or other discrimination must occur at Uppsala University. This is self-evident and fundamental. It applies to everyone and is everyone’s responsibility. But a particular responsibility rests with all of us in positions of leadership and management, especially heads of department and the Vice-Chancellor.

We have had guidelines for dealing with harassment since 2011, and these must be followed without exception. We can do a better job of emphasising the rules and standards that apply and try to make it easier for victims to report harassment. These issues are included in management training courses but could be emphasised more. This autumn, we have discussed sexual harassment in dialogues with heads of department, students and staff in many different contexts and we encourage all of you to do so too. It is good that we have included questions about sexual harassment in our work environment surveys for the past several years. It goes without saying that we will continue to do so. We welcome the fact that the #MeToo campaign has turned a spotlight on the issue of sexual violations and abuse. These issues really need to be brought to the fore and we will continue to do so indefatigably for a long time to come.

I would like to highlight the work that is being done here in Uppsala at the National Centre for Knowledge on Men’s Violence Against Women. The national telephone support line for women (Kvinnofridslinjen) has now existed for ten years and has answered more than a quarter of a million calls. Tomorrow, on Saturday 25 November, the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, a lunch programme at Uppsala City Theatre will focus on the book Åttiosex röster, ett dygn på Kvinnofridslinjen (Eighty-six voices: 24 hours on Kvinnofridslinjen). The book has been produced with the assistance of Kvinnofridslinjen staff and contains anonymised quotations from women subjected to violence who have phoned the national support line.

(Original Swedish post published 22 November.)

On Sunday and Monday 19–20 November, the U4 network held its tenth Rectors’ Conference. Delegations from the four member universities (apart from Uppsala: Ghent, Groningen and Göttingen) met in Ghent, where the university incidentally is celebrating its bicentenary this year. The Uppsala delegation consisted of representatives of the three disciplinary domains, the administration and the Vice-Chancellor. Student representatives had met students from the other universities beforehand and also took part in the conference.

During the meeting, we looked back on all the activities that have taken place over the years, including mobilities, workshops, summer and winter schools, joint publications, funding applications and joint doctorates and Master’s programmes. We really have seen strong and effective cooperation develop in the nine years that U4 has been in existence.

Looking to the years ahead, we are discussing enhanced cooperation at Master’s and PhD levels, virtual graduate schools, the development of digital learning, peer review in the area of facilities and campus development, and in the area of culture and museums, and much more. I am impressed at what all the clusters have achieved.

Next year, U4 will reach its tenth anniversary and this will be celebrated at the Rectors’ Conference in Göttingen in November 2018, when we will sum up the ten years that have passed and set out the way ahead.

Four U4 vice-chancellors.

Today we formally installed 24 new professors at the University. The grand ceremony in the University Main Building concluded a week in which the new professors have been in the spotlight. They have given well-attended inaugural lectures in the University Main Building, giving the audience a fascinating sample of many aspects of our multifaceted University.

The ceremony began with music played by the Academic Orchestra. I then gave the traditional Vice-Chancellor’s inauguration address, in which I emphasised some principles that our new professors must bear in mind.

You can read the speech here.

The inauguration had a full programme. Inaugural lectures were given by:

• Professor Sven Oskarsson on “Family connections and political engagement”
• Professor Rose-Marie Amini on “Malignant lymphoma – a diagnosis with many challenges”
• Professor Johannes Messinger on “How bacteria solved the energy problem”.

In addition, we honoured some of our skilful teachers, who received the Distinguished Teaching Award. This year’s recipients were:

• Theology, Humanities and Educational Sciences: Senior Lecturer Jenny Beckman, Department of History of Science and Ideas
• Law and Social Sciences: Senior Lecturer Susanne S:t Clair Renard, Department of Law
• Medicine and Pharmacy: Senior Lecturer Martin Wohlin, Department of Medical Sciences
• Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Technology: Senior Lecturer Magnus Hellqvist, Department of Earth Sciences
• The Free Distinguished Teaching Award: Senior Lecturer Malin Löfstedt, Department of Theology, was awarded the 2017 Free Distinguished Teaching Award on the theme “Teaching that develops ethical competence”.

The University’s innovation prize Hjärnäpplet, awarded to a researcher or research student for an outstanding transfer of academic knowledge that has resulted in an innovation, was also presented. This year it went to Hans Lennernäs, Professor of Biopharmacy.

(Original Swedish post published 15 November.)

Every semester, the University Board has an overnight conference that allows time for in-depth strategic discussions. This autumn’s overnight conference took place on Tuesday to Wednesday this week at Krusenberg Herrgård.

On Tuesday afternoon, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg presented the results of the Quality and Renewal 2017 (Q&R17) project. Vice-Rectors Johan Tysk and Torsten Svensson and Deputy Vice-Rector Mats Larhed spoke about how their disciplinary domains will proceed with the recommendations that have come out of the project. The University Board made many positive comments on the work that has been done, the planned follow-up process and how the University works on quality assurance and development issues in general. The members will be interested to follow how the results are taken forward and translated into action, in both the short term and the longer term.

The second item on the agenda on Tuesday concerned the University’s rules of procedure. In December 2016, the University Board asked the Vice-Chancellor to initiate a revision of the rules of procedure. At the beginning of the year, the Vice-Chancellor appointed a task force led by Lena Marcusson, which has produced a thorough report and a proposal for new rules of procedure. Some of the major changes proposed are:

• to give the University’s fundamental management principles special protection in the rules of procedure;
• to replace the present Academic Senate with a new university-wide body, also called the Senate, whose duties will include taking over the role of the present consultative assembly; and
• to regulate the procedures for appointing the vice-chancellor and deputy vice-chancellor in the rules of procedure.

These issues inspired a lively discussion, which also took up the question of how to organise the ongoing process of revising the rules of procedure. Against the backdrop of the discussions on Tuesday, the University Board decided during the second day’s session to appoint a group to continue work on the new rules of procedure, on the basis of the task force’s proposal. The group consists of the Board’s Chair Gudmund Hernes, Vice-Chancellor Eva Åkesson, Shirin Ahlbäck-Öberg (representing the teaching staff), Gunnar Svedberg (external) and Rozbe Bozorgi (student). University Director Katarina Bjelke will provide administrative support.

A traditional feature of the University Board’s November meeting is a presentation on the year’s Nobel Prizes. This is greatly appreciated. Many thanks to Ulf Danielsson, Katarina Edwards, Ashleigh Harris, Mikael Elinder and Dan Larhammar for explaining the prizes in such an inspiring way.

On Wednesday morning, the University Board held its regular meeting. This began with a report from the Vice-Chancellor on developments at the University since the previous meeting. Two issues that were addressed in particular were the University’s procedures for dealing with sexual harassment and the media debate that followed the news about an exhibition in Enköping on textile archaeology research.

Another point on the agenda concerned the new Ångström Laboratory, where the Vice-Chancellor had requested a consultation with the University Board before taking a decision on implementation. The University Board has received information about this project on several previous occasions. It is a major and important project that has been discussed and prepared for a long time and is now ready for a decision, following approval of the proposal by a large majority by the board of the Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology. Critical views have been voiced, as reported in the newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning.

Among other decisions taken, the University Board elected Elisabeth Dahlin its new vice-chair. The University Board also approved the establishment of the Centre for Integrated Research on Culture and Society (CIRCUS), a new interdisciplinary research initiative in the Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences.

(Original Swedish post.)

Today I received the Quality and Renewal 2017 (Q&R17) report from the project team. It’s a weighty tome, running to more than 700 pages. This afternoon it will be presented to the University Board, which will begin its strategic discussions at the autumn overnight conference. I can’t imagine a better basis for discussion.

This is the third time Uppsala University has conducted a comprehensive review of its research, and this time there has been a special focus on strengths and weaknesses in our research environments.

The report is the result of a major effort that has involved almost the entire University. Q&R17 is part of the University’s systematic quality enhancement efforts. We have had broad participation, analysing our own strengths and weaknesses in a critical and forward-looking manner to produce the best tool for improvement and development. We have also enlisted the help of 132 critical friends and eminent colleagues from all over the world, who have generously taken the time to examine our environments from an outside perspective.

Q&R17 is a powerful tool for the University’s development and quality assurance. The analysis reveals numerous sources of strength in the University’s research, but also areas where we must act to ensure that the University maintains and improves its international position. The report contains recommendations to the individual environments but also 40 more university-wide recommendations. They concern in particular:

• culture of quality and quality control,
• academic leadership and strategic renewal,
• recruitment and career support,
• international environment,
• collaboration and application,
• link between research and education, and
• internal organisation and infrastructure.

Work on Q&R17 began in February 2016. The project team has been working for nearly two years. The report is based on questionnaire responses from some 3,700 active researchers, bibliometric analysis and other key indicators, self-evaluations by the departments and reports from 19 panels of invited external reviewers.

We have learnt a lot along the way. Many colleagues in Sweden and around the world are curious about the results but also about the process. It will be interesting to follow what happens now when the results reach the departments and research teams.

I would like to say a big thank you to everyone who has contributed to Q&R17, particularly Deputy Vice-Chancellor Anders Malmberg and the project team, which has consisted of vice-rectors Anna Singer, Marika Edhoff and Mats Larhed, and to the secretariat of Camilla Maandi and Åsa Kettis of the Division for Quality Enhancement. And to all the researchers and heads of department throughout the University for your time and great dedication. And to the divisions at the University Administration and the University Library that have been deeply involved in the project. And thanks to all our critical friends as well.

Download the full report from DiVA.

Uppsala University is a member of The Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities. One of the purposes of this network is to give our University, among others, a more distinct presence in Brussels. (You may have read about this in earlier posts on this blog.) We hope that participation in the Guild will increase our leverage in European research and education policy.

We have a long tradition of collaboration with researchers throughout the world, but we have stronger relationships with some countries than with others. This is why there has been great concern since the Brexit referendum. Brexit negotiations are now in progress and from Uppsala’s perspective, it is important that cooperation with the United Kingdom in particular can continue to function smoothly. Many universities all around Europe are discussing solutions and agreements, research cooperation and student cooperation.

In this context the Guild, today published a statement signed by all member universities. You can read the statement here: Guild Statement on Brexit

Investing in the Future of Europe – The Guild’s statement on Brexit

As Brexit talks continue, it is crucial to restate the importance of joint investment in knowledge, human capital and innovation, enabled across borders by European universities. Ensuring the welfare of Europe’s economies and strengthening our societies requires more collaboration in research and innovation, not less. The success of European universities depends on their ability to circulate ideas freely, through their researchers, students and alumni. This must not be affected adversely by Brexit.

We need continued investment in student mobility, including between the EU and the UK, to strengthen our societies and ensure economic resilience. For students, spending time abroad halves the risks of long-term unemployment. In 2013-14, around 272,000 students across Europe studied abroad with an Erasmus+ grant;1 and 15% of that mobility was between the UK and other European countries.2 Of the 290,000 students undertaking a traineeship abroad between 2007 and 2013, one-third were offered employment by their host countries, and 10% created their own companies. It is hard to think of a better return of an investment of €274 per student per month for life-long high-quality employment, social welfare, and economic growth across Europe.3

We call for investment in EU framework programmes to sustain and enhance the quality of research in Europe, including the UK. By definition, Europe’s knowledge economies rely on the creation of new knowledge. Bringing the best minds together across borders to collaborate on solving scientific challenges is critical to maximizing the impact of research. The field-weighted citation index for EU-funded research publications for the period 2007-16 is 2.44 (with 1 representing the worldwide average), far exceeding that achieved by researchers funded nationally, in any country.4

The free circulation of ideas can best be guaranteed by the free and uninterrupted movement of researchers, students and their families. A study published recently in Nature shows that the normalized citation score for mobile scientists exceeds that of non-mobile scientists in Western Europe by 47%. Scholars who are mobile during their careers benefit the receiving country, but also the country of origin where they contribute to fostering international networks.5 Similarly, students must have the right to study for a full-time degree at the university that best suits their interests and needs. Our economies and university communities benefit from the skills and creativity of these graduates.

We urge continued long-term support for innovation across borders. Our graduates and our research are central to the success of European industry and entrepreneurship, and to the ability of European products to remain competitive in a fast-changing world. Since 2008, for instance, the Clean Sky2 initiative has brought together over 600 public and private partners to collaborate with European aeronautical industries, to ensure that European aviation continues to be at the forefront of the effort to reduce emissions. It involves UK-based multinationals like Rolls Royce, and 16 out of approximately 90 participating universities are British. Undermining the status of UK participation cannot be in anyone’s interest.6 Investment in innovation and skills across borders is the best guarantee that any jobs lost as a result of globalization are replaced by high-skilled employment.

1 European Commission (2015). Erasmus: Facts, Figures and Trends. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [Online]. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/ education/library/statistics/erasmus-plus-facts-figures_en.pdf [accessed 17 October 2017].

2 European Commission (2015). Erasmus+ Statistics 2014 – United Kingdom. Office for Official Publications of Publications of the European Communities. [Online]. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/ repository/education/library/statistics/2014/united-kingdom_en.pdf [accessed 17 October 2017].

3 European Commission (2015). Erasmus: Facts, Figures and Trends. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [Online]. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/repository/ education/library/statistics/erasmus-plus-facts-figures_en.pdf [accessed 17 October 2017].

4 EU Commission, Horizon 2020 Monitoring Report 2015 (2016), p.67. Individual national field-weighted citation indeces include Switzerland (1.8), the Netherlands (1.77), the UK (1.54) and Germany (1.41). The Royal Society makes this point specifically for the UK. The Royal Society – Science Policy Centre (2016). UK research and the European Union: The role of the EU in funding UK research. [Online]. Available from https://royalsociety.org/~/ media/policy/projects/eu-uk-funding/uk-membership-of-eu.pdf [accessed 17 October 2017].

5 Cassidy R. Sugimoto et. al. (2017). Scientists have the most impact when they move. Nature, 550(7674), 29-31. https://www.nature.com/news/scientists-have-most-impact-when-they-re-free-to-move-1.22730 [accessed 24 October 2017].

6 See http://www.cleansky.eu.