Urgent calls to close the gap between research and teaching

There is a risk that higher education in Sweden will collapse, warned University Chancellor Harriet Wallberg in a recent article in Dagens Nyheter. “The widening gap between investment in teaching at basic levels and research is creating ever-more distress,” she wrote.

Agreement across the political divide was needed that would guarantee increased investment in higher education for at least 20 years.

The strong message from Wallberg only two months after her appointment as university chancellor must be seen against the backdrop of a looming Swedish general election on 14 September.

There have also been numerous reports evaluating the higher education sector, demonstrating that while Sweden has the second highest gross domestic product investment in the world after Denmark, this has not delivered value for money in terms of the sector’s performance.

Even between 2005 and 2011 expenditure on higher education increased from 0.78% to 0.9% of GDP, while most other countries reduced investment due to austerity measures caused by the economic recession.

A report from the Centre for Business and Policy Studies, or SNS, confirmed Wallberg’s worries.

Combining Excellence in Education, Research and Impact: Inspiration from Stanford and Berkeley and implications for Swedish universities is a comparative analysis, well documented and strongly argued, that delivers a plethora of fact and observation.

It was written by United States and Swedish scholars, and high-level officers of Swedish institutions – Arthur Bienenstock, Sylvia Schwaag Serger, Mats Benner and Anne Lidgard.

The report is a part of an ‘educational commission’ established by SNS to monitor Swedish higher education and give recommendations to the government.

It calls for extensive reforms, notably changing recruitment to institutions to reduce academic ‘inbreeding’ and attracting more international talent, increasing mobility both between higher education institutions and other sectors of society – and most of all upgrading the quality of teaching at universities.

“Swedish universities have shifted their emphasis strongly towards research at the expense of teaching, with disconcerting effects on teaching quality and the international attractiveness of Swedish universities,” the report says.

“This research bias is partially explained by the fact that in Sweden academic excellence is often equated with research excellence, neglecting the importance of teaching. Furthermore, it indicates an under-appreciation of the key role of students, and thus teaching, in determining regions’ and countries’ competitiveness and innovation capacity.”

A faulty model

In Sweden, according to the report, students specialise too early while at the two US universities the focus from the start is on educating the whole student. It commends the position of Stanford University President John Hennessy:

“If our graduates are to assume the responsibilities of local, national and global citizenship, they need not only deep knowledge and well-honed skills but also a wider set of characteristics and responsibilities… the ability to work collaboratively in diverse teams; tolerance, generosity and a broad capacity for empathy.”

“The model of a general education programme or liberal arts education – applied to Stanford and Berkeley and a large number of US universities – is largely absent in the Swedish university education system,” the report states.

It asks whether the introduction of tuition fees for students from outside Europe, and the subsequent dramatic drop in student enrolments from Asia and Africa, had revealed that Swedish universities find it difficult to attract the best international students.

The report refutes this explanation: “We believe that it would be misleading and mistaken to blame the drop in students from outside the European Union mainly on a shortage of scholarships or other funding sources available to these students."

Instead, “other factors explain why globally mobile students, or their families, seem to be more willing to pay, often quite heavily, for their tertiary education in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, rather than coming to Sweden".

“One of these factors, we argue, is the quality and focus of teaching and education.”

Hence the many recommendations in the report circle around leveraging teaching quality: “Sweden should modify its university funding mechanisms so that sufficient funds are provided for teaching and the tenure track system is fully supported.”

Some responses

Astrid Söderbergh Widding, vice-chancellor of Stockholm University, told University World News: “I strongly agree that there is a need for a long-term common movement in order to create a coherent concept for higher education in Sweden."

One of the interesting points made by the Combining Excellence report, she says, is regarding the question of how and when students should specialise. “Stockholm University offers a broad spectrum.

“I believe in the education culture that exists for example at Stanford and Berkeley where education is not only something that should be directly matched with a future job but also give individuals the capacity to function as active citizens and understand the complexity of the world.

“Another interesting point in the report is the question of recruitment, which I believe to be a key issue for the future of our universities. At Stockholm University, we are working systematically to recruit internationally in open, transparent processes,” says Söderbergh.

Professor Lena Adamson, associate professor of psychology at Stockholm University and a higher education expert, told University World News that she fully agreed with Harriet Wallberg.

“Swedish higher education funding is divided in two parts: one for education (teaching) and one for research. The hollowing out of financial resources for teaching is estimated to be SEK7 billion (US$1 billion) since 1993, mainly affecting teaching time.

“This is hidden behind messages of ‘massive investments in universities’, which in fact essentially consist of financial resources allocated to research.”

It should be borne in mind that 90% of research funding went to 10 of Sweden’s 38 higher education institutions – mainly the research universities – and 10% to the remaining 28, which lacked funding for both education and research.

“This, in combination with [the fact] that the general academic value system, where research activities systematically are valued higher than teaching, is particularly strong in Sweden, and can only result in the collapse our new chancellor is predicting if it is allowed to continue,” Adamson says.

“I can only hope that a new government, after the next election, will get the priorities right.”