It goes without saying that a university should offer education linked to research, as this can only strengthen the institution and help it to evolve. Our students have a right to knowledge that is up-to-date and relevant, and this can only be guaranteed if the education is closely linked to a scientific, research-based environment.
But the issue that’s generally neglected is what this research should be, and how the quality of research improves when there is a close link between it, education and students. Is it equally obvious that research should be linked to education, as it is that education should be linked to research? It’s never a bad thing to have young, questioning people around, but how does this bolster research, and how can the interchange between education and research be developed in a way that teachers, researchers and students need each other?
These matters were subjects for debate at the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences last week, in which I participated, based on a recent report (in Swedish only) presented by the Academy. The report looks at how education and research can be closely integrated in further education in Sweden today – or rather, how this is currently not happening.
One suggestion in the report is that greater efforts in research should also be accompanied by efforts to develop the education environment. This is an interesting and innovative proposal, which would mean that research efforts should also work in favour of education, for example by linking the development of master’s programmes to research funding.
For a research-intensive university like KTH, this would be a positive development. It would mean that we have greater scope to create complete academic environments, and could also better benefit from the advantages that arise from expanded, successful research environments. One pivotal argument in linking education to research funding is that it is through education that we can most quickly ensure that the latest and most advanced research has an impact.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in other forums, and to have further opportunities to emphasise the importance of keeping research and education closely linked. In that context, it would of course be important to once again raise the issue of collective funding for research and education (as is the practice in many other countries, not least in the Nordics) so that the connection between research and education is emphasised also in the governance system. This is, after all, what makes us a university.
In Sweden, higher education institutions are national concerns as they are funded through taxes and the state is the principal for the vast majority of institutions. This means that, ultimately, the development of the academic sector is based on political decisions made by Sweden’s parliament and government. What is also needed, therefore, is a higher education policy that formulates this responsibility, and defines goals and roadmaps for the development of the sector.
A higher education policy might, for instance, include position statements on the role of education in democratic development and the provision of skills for society, and the importance of research in improving competitiveness and societal progress. A higher education policy agenda could also include core values to protect, such as the institutional autonomy of universities and freedom for students, teachers and researchers to seek out knowledge. The higher education policy would be based on the individual institution’s development needs to enable it to contribute to overall developments in society in the best possible way.
The difference between what we have today and what the higher education sector needs to be, is therefore an expression of the reform that’s needed in the sector. Perhaps the funding system needs to be restructured, perhaps reforms are needed to bolster autonomy, or maybe changes are needed in the admissions procedure to bring higher education more in line with society’s need for skills and expertise. Depending on the ideology and goals, different reform catalogues could be formulated as a foundation for the hard work of drafting reports and bills. So essentially, the standard way of producing policy.
The concern for further education is that while it is the recipient of considerable state resources, it is not an important area in its own right. Higher education is needed to meet challenges in other areas: for example to help achieve the energy transition, provide skills for a changing labour market, or to help solve problems regarding equality in the school system. That’s all well and good.
But far more rarely does anyone ask the question: What do the institutions themselves need if they are to build a strong operation for the good of society? The important matter of the institutions’ own needs if they are to serve as a crucial force in all areas of society, long-term, has been completely absent from any negotiating table during recent governments’ terms of office.
Having said that, maybe it doesn’t matter that much. The higher education sector is robust! There is economic scope and there are great cohorts of staff doing an excellent job, even though higher education policy itself is being ignored. Ground-breaking research is still being done, and universities and other higher education institutions are continuously developing and updating their programmes to meet the needs of students and the labour market.
Even so, something feels off. The risk of not having a higher education policy is that institutions become easy prey when other issues come to the fore. If for example a security-policy issue should arise, the temptation may be to take swift, ineffective action to the detriment of the higher education sector. Or if, say, 180 million kronor is needed somewhere in the political sphere – surely this can be taken from the apparently so well-funded higher education sector, as it doesn’t have a particularly robust reform agenda in any case, and it’s an area of low political interest.
This is what could happen if, like Alice in Wonderland, you don’t know – and don’t much care – where you’re going. But it is certainly an interpretation that is a bit exaggerated.
After six months as University President at KTH, the summer break is almost upon us. But first a few inspiring and, I hope, thought-provoking days at the political week in Almedalen, where everything from urban planning to academic freedom and strategic partnerships will be on the agenda.
It’s a source of pride and joy to see the breadth of KTH’s research and how it’s reflected in the various panels at Almedalen. Energy solutions for the future, how remote working can benefit regional development, and what education is in a world of AI.
These are some of the topics in which representatives from KTH will be engaging and debating.
This year, there’s the opportunity to book a young expert on a panel. The idea is that more, and above all different, voices and perspectives should be heard in the debate and political discussion during Almedalen Week. This is certainly a good idea, and next year we may be joined by even more participants in the panels and seminar, bringing a wider perspective and broader experience than usual. It could be an important step in being able to better reflect opportunities for the future.
I have heard various opinions and predictions saying that Almedalen is on the decline, and that this year’s over 2,000 events may not attract as many visitors as last year, when there were 35,000 or so.
But coming together and mooting ideas is always needed in a democracy, and at a university like KTH. In this respect, Almedalen Week is vital in reflecting the times we live in, discussing the future and learning lessons from our experiences. We will have to see how this summer’s event goes, but interest initially at any rate remains high for the political week in Visby [the main city on Gotland island].
Perhaps we’ll meet in Visby the week after Midsummer…? Either way, I wish you a nice, relaxing summer break!
KTH has some 175,000 alumni around the world – on important, exciting assignments which we hope are applying and refining the skills and knowledge they once learnt at KTH. It’s quite dizzying to think that all these people once studied something, at least 7.5 higher education credits, at KTH.
Our alumni network spans 32,000 people in 19 chapters worldwide. About 23 percent of KTH’s alumni now live and work abroad. According to a 2021 career survey at KTH, roughly one in five graduates have opted to live abroad in the past ten years. And the same survey shows this is a dream for many more.
The world has shrunk, while societal challenges are growing increasingly complex – which is to say that our former students are making great contributions around the world, and perhaps that home is now, far more than just 20 years ago, the place where people choose to work and make a career – regardless of country and continent.
This not only shows that our students are sought-after on the global labour market, but it also reflects KTH’s international status as a university.
From the alumni event in the USA in May. (Photo: Linnea Dicksen)
In early May, a Swedish delegation visited the US and had the opportunity to meet alumni in San Francisco’s Silicon Valley, the Mecca of innovation. This is home to one of our two US chapters, the other one being in New York.
I felt proud and quite emotional to meet such dedicated and inspiring people, who were passionate about their alma mater. Many of the people we met now work for major tech corporations or global Swedish companies with operations in the US.
Open science is extremely important – not just for the democratisation of research, but also for the quality, progress and, not least, cost-effectiveness of publications.
The term ‘open science’ refers partly to open access to scientific publications and partly to open access to research data. Both aspects have their specific challenges to consider and are currently being debated in many parts of the sector, both nationally and internationally. The Swedish government has commissioned the National Library of Sweden to develop national guidelines for open science by 1 January 2024. Recently, a two-day conference was held on the theme under the title Open Science from policy to practice in which KTH was involved.
When it comes to scientific publications, there are financial gains that publishing firms now risk losing out on if the research community can build new, innovative digital solutions for scientific publication. The conventional model is that the universities pay for the research to be conducted, then the researchers help quality assure articles submitted for assessment (often without being paid) and then the same researchers have to pay to read the articles once they have been published.
The publishing industry is therefore protecting its business models and is naturally reluctant to change. In the past, the universities have paid to access and read the articles, while nowadays open access to the material is often guaranteed through paying for publication instead. Or in fact, both models still exist, some publications are still closed behind subscription services and others are open by means of publication fees. In practice, there are many variations on how the articles are made available with combinations of open and closed access and different types of fees. The models have names like diamond, green, gold or hybrid.
Whatever the solution, all the attempts to maintain the conventional, costly model for scientific publication are contrary to the concept of open science, and significant sums are being transferred from research to publishing firms. The publishers’ business models are therefore clear obstacles to open science. In an ideal world, a ‘Spotify revolution’ would take place where the powerful position of the publishing firms is broken, or at least fundamentally changed, and where the research community steps forward and, within the framework of digital solutions, makes research openly available – without compromising on quality and without the publishing firms acting as costly intermediaries.
This is not without its challenges. The quality control that the publishing firms are currently responsible for, the strong ‘brands’ of individual titles and the importance that universities attach to publication data and the impact values of the journals in all kinds of assessment must in that case be managed differently. There are also people who vigorously defend the publication model, and who are prepared to fight for it, while at the same time community-driven publication models are being developed where the researchers themselves are in control of the journals.
We are clearly somewhere in the middle of a transition to open access and we must stand firm so that we do not go back to costly models, where the only change is in the method of charging high fees from subscription to publication. The transition is being driven at both national and European level by research funders and political decision-makers, although we still lack a clear disruptor capable of fundamentally changing the conditions.
Author
