University reform process in Finland

The establishment of the ‘new’ university was part of a major university reform in Finland in 2010. The formation of the ‘new’ university organisation in Eastern Finland through the merger is actually a closure of the historical development process (speech 2009). In public discussion in the 1960s, there were plans to form one university in Eastern Finland. Instead, there were three universities estab-lished in the region: in Joensuu, Kuopio and Lappeenranta in 1966.

The University of Eastern Finland started operations on 1.1.2010 at three cam-puses in Joensuu, Kuopio and Savonlinna. The execution of the merger process has been accomplished. There are four faculties and 13 educational fields, as il-lustrated in Figure 6.

The philosophical faculty operates in the Joensuu and Savonlinna campuses, the Faculty of Science and Forestry operates in the Joensuu and Kuopio campuses, the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies operates in the Joensuu and Kuopio campuses and the Faculty of Health Sciences operates solely in Kuopio campus.

UNIVERSITY OF JOENSUU in 2007 Campuses in Joensuu and in Savonlinna

8 300 students whom which 1 100 in Savonlinna campus.

1350 staff members whom which 160 in Savonlinna campus.

PROCESS OF MERGER : Commitment

2008

4/2008 Decision of the Faculty Structure of the new organization UNIVERSITY OF KUOPIO in 2007

7 Educational fields,

Figure 6: Merger process: execution: The organisation of the University of Eastern Finland in 2010 (Applied from source: Nevala 2009, 485).

The formation of the ‘new’ university organisation through the merger was one of the major projects in order to reform university institutions in Finland. Parliament passed the Universities Bill in 16 June 2009. The new law replaced the Universities Act of 1997 (http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutuspolitiikka/Hankkeet/

Yliopistolaitoksen_uudistaminen/?lang=en 6.6.2015 at 15:30)

According to Kaukonen & Välimaa (2010, 15), the aim of the Finnish higher educational policy (law), since the end of the 1980s, has been to increase the au-tonomy of universities, which means that the university’s own decision making is stressed and state-bureaucracy is diminished. This has occurred by strength-ening the role of the rector, dean and head of departments in the university or-ganisations. The economic autonomy of the university has been increased. On the other hand, the Finnish universities have been directed to serve the needs of Finnish society and the economy by creating innovations through research and education.

Board University Collegiate Body Rector,

The transformation of Finnish university law and its implications to manage-ment in the university during the research period in 1998-2014 is illustrated in Table 1 below. The first actual university law was the Universities Act of 1997 (645/1997), which became effective on 1.8.1998. Before that, each university was directed by a law that was issued on a university basis in separate pieces of leg-islation (Jääskinen & Rantanen 2007, 50), for example, the law concerning the de-velopment of higher education (1058/1986) (Juppo 2011, 12). The essential changes (Kekäle 2001, 21) concerning the university Act 1986 are presented in Table 1 below.

From 1995 to 2013, the Finnish higher education sector was subject to mul-tiple reforms, as Kallio et al. (2015, 8) note. The university funding scheme was renewed many times, due to which the basis of funding and the applied indica-tors were changed. The emphasis on the output of universities was highlighted in 2005 in the performance management model. There is autonomy in university management when comes to the means for securing the desired output. The focus is on the outcomes of the university and ex post monitoring (Kallio et al.

2015, 8).

As Jääskinen & Rantanen (2007, 50) continue, in Finland the Government pass-es decrepass-es concerning the degrepass-es that each university may issue. The degree programmes that each university may provide are decreed by the Ministry of Education, on the basis of a proposal by the university.

The main change in university law 1997 was that universities were able to create and terminate the disciplines and units by themselves, while earlier these decisions had been made by the Ministry of Education. Furthermore, from now on the university rector could appoint the professors in the university, instead of the Finnish president. Furthermore, it was possible to appoint the members to a university board outside the university organisation. The universities were also made to evaluate their education, research and impact on society (and to be evaluated by outsiders) (Kaukonen& Välimaa 2010, 16).

Globalisation was an essential concept in the public debate at the end of the 1990s. The globalisation discourse reflected the higher education policy especially in the form of Brunila’s report which was published in 2004. due to the report, public discussion surrounding the effectiveness of the universities accelerated.

There was criticism that there were too many universities in Finland and that they were also too small. Finland was lacking in universities with international level research capabilities. The profilization and specialization of universities was called for earlier in a report by professor Rantanen in 2004 (Kaukonen & Välimaa 2010, 16).

Thus, there was a large amount of discourse and numerous surveys concern-ing the universities at the beginnconcern-ing of the new millennium in Finland. As noted in Jääskinen & Rantanen (2007, 21), the Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland has recommended that the financial powers of universities should be increased by legislative measures in order to better equip them for world-class knowledge and networking.

Table 1: University laws and the implications for university management in

A shift from regulation to objectives. Universities were expected to compete for their resources. The introduction of assessment of the results and costs of research, as well as the consideration of per-formance in allocating new funds (cost-effective-ness). Universities prepare performance reports regularly for the Ministry of Education

645/1997

An international level in education and research must be accomplished

Rectorship period for 5 years (before 4 years) Third mission: to impact society, in addition to the missions of education and research (715/2004)

2005 x

Emphasis on the autonomy of university manage-ment. Performance management; with control mechanisms based on outcomes and ex post monitoring.

Autonomy of the universities and further man-agement emphasis universities Act (558/2009)

“the mission of the universities is to promote free research and academic education, to provide higher education based on research, and to edu-cate students to serve their country and human-ity. In carrying out their mission, the universities must promote lifelong learning, interact with the surrounding society and promote the impact of research findings on society. Universities must arrange their activities, so as to assure a high international standard in research, education and teaching in conformity with ethical principles and good scientific practices.”

As an operational and administrative entity, the university is a unique, diverse and heterogeneous organisation, composed of academic work in different disci-plines and university governance. The university is also increasingly influenced by the pursuit of economic and societal gain. The internal and external interests in the university system and the aims of the increasingly heterogeneous set of ac-tors involved make the university an entity of complexity and tension, as regards to its operation and procedures (Jääskinen & Rantanen 2007, 21).

On december 2005, the Ministry of Education invited Mr. Justice Niilo Jääskinen and Professor Jorma Rantanen to review the financial and adminis-trative status of universities and make proposals for a reform. The survey by Jääskinen & Rantanen in 2007 is an essential document from the university re-form in Finland, as Nevala stresses (2009, 479). There were procedures needed at universities for steering and management systems. A reform of university gover-nance is needed by strengthening the universities’ internal management.

As noted by Jääskinen& Rantanen (2007, 21), the university organisation has to be transformed from the state legal entity to a new type of a legal entity under public law. Posts and tenures at the universities will fall under legislation on labour contracts instead of civil service regulations.

While Jääskinen & Rantanen were still working on their survey, the Ministry of Education decided on the main principles of the structural development of higher education in March 2006 (Nevala 2009, 479). There were separate processes yet tightly linked with university reform concerning the structural renewals in university institutes (Nevala 2009,480).

In 2006, the Ministry of Education started a study into cooperation between universities. Professor Reijo Vihko suggested the alliance between the University of Joensuu and the University of Kuopio in his report in 2007. There were two other university alliances in Finland; in Turku and in Helsinki (Kaukonen &

Välimaa 2010, 16).

4.3.4 A process view of trust development – combining two models