Towards a future proof system for higher education and research in Finland

By Göran Melin, Frank Zuijdam, Barbara Good, Jelena Angelis, Johanna Enberg, Derek Jan Fikkers, Jaana Puukka, AnnaKarin Swenning, Kristel Kosk, Jesse Lastunen, Stijn Zegel.
Recommendations
While the reflections above contain conclusions, ideas and some suggestions for change that we think would deserve to be further discussed and explored, and seriously considered, we present a set of distinct recommendations in the following. The International Panel has arrived at a set of recommendations after having concluded their part of the project and authored their report. The Panel’s recommendations are found in the Panel’s report (Appendix A). These recommendations have been taken into account when we have formulated the overall recommendations below.
Based on relevant previous literature, national and international statistics and the empirical findings from this study, including the International Panel’s review, we recommend the Finnish governmental authorities to take adequate measures related to the following points:

• Treat the universities and the universities of applied sciences in a similar way. This would mean comparable external funding opportunities and quality assessment criteria. The reformed funding structure for UAS is a step in the right direction. Both universities and UAS should have possibilities to grow and develop their operations and profile themselves. This means that UAS should be just as eligible to conduct research and apply for research funding as the universities. There is no reason why different quality assessment criteria should be applied to UAS than to universities. Those institutions that do not live up to the expected standards or fail to attract sufficient funding need to reconsider their situation, and should get the government’s advice and assistance in doing so. HEIs that show budget deficits or insufficient scientific quality cannot continue to operate as before.
• The quality of both teaching and research should be the emphasis of the UAS rather than the regional role. There is a strong regional role for them to play but the UAS are first and foremost knowledge producing organisations and it is as strong knowledge producing organisations that they can play a better regional role in the future. This means that both universities and UAS have the same fundamental raison d’etre.
• Remove any barriers towards increased and improved communication and cooperation between UAS and universities. This includes the possibility to form institutional alliances and even to merge for those HEIs that wishes to do so. In most cases the improved cooperation will result in harmonised study programmes and the development of joint study programmes, for instance. There is also a matter of increased research collaboration. The HEIs should be free to make their operations more relevant and efficient through increased and intensified cooperation in both education and research, with other HEIs and with business and society, and by reducing the number of parallel and partly competing programmes or subjects. It is up the HEIs to undertake the rationalisation and profiling changes that they want, but it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that there are no legislative barriers towards such undertakings.
• The difficulties for students to transfer between study programmes and courses at universities and UAS need to decrease. There are possibilities to transfer today but we have heard repeated witness that it is troublesome and time consuming. The system is perceived as inflexible and rigid, creating obstacles instead of opportunities for young people who wish to transfer in order to shape their own study profile, or simply want to change between the two tracks for any other reason. The separation between study programmes at universities and UAS is too strong and the mental and organisational distance between them need to shorten.
• Voices are raised for the need of rapid progress regarding modernisation of teaching and learning methods, including digitalisation. Innovative and alternative ways of providing higher education ought to be explored. This is mostly a matter for the HEIs themselves, but we recommend the governmental authorities to consider any initiative that can support and speed up such a process.
• There are strong indications that Finnish higher education and research are in great need of strengthened internationalisation. There are many aspects to this, and it is a matter for stakeholders on several levels in the system. For instance, the relatively low level of internationalisation seems to be a question of general openness towards the surrounding global academic community, as well as a question of more concrete opportunities and support measures aimed towards individuals and institutions to engage in international exchange and interaction. We strongly recommend the ministry and other governmental authorities to consider any action that could help transforming the Finnish academic community towards a more internationalised character. Some of the efforts to increase the level of internationalisation could be specifically aimed at the young generation; first and foremost PhD students but also young researchers on postdoctoral level. Changing the attitudes towards international contacts and concrete international collaboration including mobility is an essential part of a long term transformation of the system’s openness towards the international community and willingness to involve in more international collaborations. The ministry should ensure that there are good opportunities and also strong expectations on PhD students to spend part of their training, one or two semesters, at a foreign institution. A specific support scheme should be set up by any of the Finnish funding organisations. We recommend that the scale of such a scheme or scholarship programme is sufficient enough to have real impact on systems level; this probably means that at least one hundred PhD students should get the opportunity to spend time abroad every year. The ministry or any other governmental authority should furthermore evaluate if additional support besides what is available today needs to be provided for postdoctoral researchers in order to increase the available funds for a postdoctoral period abroad and create an expectation that such a period is a more or less mandatory step for anyone who wants to pursue an academic career. When it comes to reformed recruitment behaviour, it is a matter for the HEIs themselves, but the ministry should clarify its strong expectation that they swiftly revisit their own recruitment policies and make necessary changes in direction of increased transparency and external, and international, advertisement of positions.
• The ministry should consider in what way FINEEC could be used more in the transformation and development of the system. For instance FINEEC could get the mandate to evaluate relevance and innovation capacity in the HE system, besides its current tasks. Our impression is that today, FINEEC does not have very much of an opinion of what can be improved with reference to entrepreneurship and relevance of the education. FINEEC needs to sharpen its instruments and its approach so it can contribute to real quality improvement and a quality safeguarding mentality at the HEIs. Now the focus seems to be too much on the plain quality of education but without taking into account what the education leads to.

Download Towards a future proof system for higher education and research in Finland.