Main external and internal change forces – globalisation

Universities and higher education systems in general, in all countries, faced con-tradictory external and internal pressures for change in the 1990s. Governments have since integrated universities in national development programmes with po-litical and financial ties. Universities are currently expected to support social and economic developments (Hölttä 1995, 15).

At the end of 1990s and at the beginning of the new millennium, the rector discussed the novel challenges which university institutes were facing. As a new rector at the University of Joensuu, the speech in 1998 described the university as being at a crossroads of demands from three directions in society. There were local, national and global level interests and pressures on the university organi-sation.

due to globalisation, the university as a static accounting office under the national state-bureaucracy was not able to totally manage and control its environ-ment any longer. The universities were meeting the new borderless competition as the rector discusses in his speech in 1999. This meant that international virtual teaching was available for everyone, students could choose universities from all over the world, and teachers were able to move for a better salary or improved working conditions.

In his speech in 2002 titled ‘National university institute at a crossroads’ the rector discusses the internationalisation of the university institutes. The rector states in 2002 that in spite the nature of the scientific community being universal, the Finnish university institutes are strongly national. The discourse of inter-nationalisation and globalisation within universities emerged only recently in higher education policy. In his speech in 2002, the rector clarifies the concepts of internationalisation and globalisation, which are ‘used as synonyms in everyday language.’

The cooperation within the European Union is a good example of the inter-nationalisation of the universities. In this case, the decision making is still at the national level. Globalisation on the other hand, according to the rector, refers to worldwide economic integration which means the free circulation of goods, services, people and capital. From that perspective, higher education is also seen as part of a service market which should not be limited by country barriers. due to globalisation, as the rector states in 2002, the perspective changes from that of international cooperation between universities towards competition between single university actors.

The discourse focussing on the economic autonomy of the universities was initiated at the beginning of the 21^st century in 2002. The external change forces were noticed within the university organisation by the year 2002. The impact of the environmental change was taken into account within the university institute and, accordingly, management change was proposed to the Ministry of Education in 2002. The global competitive environment forces Finnish universities towards more dynamic and flexible procedures, which is not possible with the static ac-counting office status within a state-bureaucracy.

There is a need for more flexible financing and human resource management systems in the university organisation. The Council of Finnish University Rectors made a suggestion in May 2002 for increasing the economic autonomy of universi-ties. In 2002 the rector pointed out that he sees the increase in the economic auton-omy of universities more as an attempt to reform the Finnish university institutes than the marketization and privatization of the universities. The themes in the bureaucracy discourse concerning autonomy were already taking place within the university institute before the critical public discourse towards universities by the press and in the business world came to the forefront in 2005 in Finland.

In 2003 rector discussed the need for the budget management (state-bureau-cracy) to contain more competitive elements. The university budget and perfor-mance measurements should not only be quantitatively based; i.e. based on the intake of students and the number of awarded degrees. There should also be stimulating elements in the budgeting. The stimulating and motivating elements of the budget should be focused on research and quality and the international competitiveness of the university (speech 2003).

The need for the planning and renewal of structures is stressed discursively.

The rector acts discursively within the university institute and has the power to influence the state-bureaucracy at a national level through his discourse. The rector stressed (speech 2003) that in Finland, we are living in an “unchanged (=stationary) dream of the welfare state”. This means that in the name of equal-ity, the new master’s level higher education institutes and research institutes are being created all over the country without planning and discussion of the future directions of higher education (speech 2003).

The discourse of bureaucracy that the rector faced in his work is stressed as the rector himself in the discourse (speech 2005). The delay of two years for the university to be able to direct budget resources to small knowledge intensive

business prevented the university from participating in the commercialization of knowledge as a business action. The bureaucracy hindered the university in making small business oriented budget decisions.

On the other hand, the Finnish higher education system is ideal in the way that it is funded by the government and managed by law. This way, it has been able to be create an equal quality national level higher education system. The quality of the degree does not vary according to the university institute in Finland (speech 2005). This guarantees the equal quality of Finnish higher education.

The European Union plays a role in the process of university reform in Finland. There are plans within the European Union (speech 2002) to create a common research and teaching area (in higher education) in Europe. This is the way for Europe to develop as a competitive and knowledge intensive conti-nent (speech 2006). The European Union emphasises the role of basic research in universities, whereas in Finland the emphasis is on innovation and applied research (speech 2003). The European commission advises member countries to renew their universities (speech 2006) in order to improve the competitive-ness of the European continent. This is a wake-up call for all national decision makers (speech 2006).

The discourse for the need of larger university units (speech 2004) and the ef-fectiveness of the universities is increasing in intensity. The rector reminds us that the Council of Finnish University Rectors has talked about increasing the eco-nomic autonomy of the universities to the Prime Minister’s Office but that their arguments have fallen on ‘deaf ears’. Until the summer of 2004 the policymakers in society supported the attempt.

Simultaneously, the vulnerability of the university organisation related to the demand for autonomy was highlighted discursively in 2004. The university organisation will meet novel risks in the future. The university might face a de-crease in the budget resources in relation to the achievement of its objectives.

Economic autonomy also brings risk taking and pressures to improve the man-agement procedures in the university.

The rector refers to the report of Anne Brunila et al., which was published in June 2004 by the Prime Minister’s Office. The rector sees the report as a sign of novel thinking (speech 2004). The university is unable to operate as a static ac-counting office in an international competitive environment.

The rector agrees with the suggestion given in the report: ‘to improve the abil-ity of the universities to build internationally competitive education and units’.

The rector adds research to the list. Namely, as the rector stresses, “The competi-tiveness of the universities is based on strong basic research which is free from short-term-benefits,” (speech 2004).

In Finland, the role of research in the university budget that is negotiated with the Ministry of Education is not in focus as such (speech 2003). In a state bu-reaucracy (the Ministry of Education), science is located in the Finnish Academy and education is located in universities (speech 2003). There is some discourse in Finland about dividing universities into research- and educational universities

(speech 2004). The rector interprets this (in speech 2004) as meaning the division of universities into two categories; international level research universities and so called regional universities.

The national level administration of research policy is discussed in 2003.

The universities in Finland are seen as educational institutions, whereas the re-search is located to the Finnish Academy. The science and technological policy in Finland is implemented through a number of organisation, ministries and operators. These are: The Ministry of Commerce, Tekes (The Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation), The Ministry of Education and The Finnish Academy.

University staff are included in decision making in the Finnish Academy (speech 2003).

The procedures concerning research are changing due to the university re-form. Research is stressed as a core mission of the universities. International level research is expected to be achieved in the universities and the universities are profiled on the basis of their research. doctoral education is offered by the univer-sities in doctoral programmes. The national level doctoral programmes formerly organised by the Finnish Academy, were transferred to the universities in 2013.

Globalisation and the change in the environment are challenging the univer-sity management, as discussed in the rector’s speech in 2005 titled ‘Revolution or Reform’. The structural renewal of the Finnish universities dominates the dis-course. The rector begins his speech in 2005 by describing the public discourse saying, “If the only information channel is the media, the Finnish university institute would appear to be in crisis.”

Within this discourse, as the rector states, the rectors of the universities are seen as the maintainers of the old structures. For example, as the rector continues in 2005, “The suggestions of the Council of Finnish University Rectors is to give more autonomy to universities while the need to renew the tenure procedure in universities is not getting publicity, nor are the statements of the Council of Finnish University Rectors media sexy enough.”

5.2.2 The university in a national context – re-contextualisation