Writing Support Services in Norwegian Higher Education

This chapter describes recent changes and reforms in the governance and leadership structure in Norwegian higher education. The main questions in the analysis are as follows: In what direction has the leadership structure in Norwegian higher education moved? Are we witnessing a development towards a less democratic structure with a subsequent change towards a more management-oriented structure, or is another picture emerging? There are still democratic elements in the middle-management structure in Norwegian higher education, both in formal arrangements and in how the system is carried out in practice. And, even though many democratic elements are no longer mandatory, it is still possible for the institutions to pursue a democratic structure, but not one that is prescribed and predefined by the state authorities. The structure still has some democratic features, even though changes make it difficult to use the label democracy. While it could be argued that representative democracy is under pressure, deliberative democracy seems to have established roots in the leadership style in Norwegian higher education.

Quality assurance is well known internationally but the notion is relatively new in Norway. To understand some of the issues and dilemmas that emerge in the Norwegian reception of quality assurance in higher education, this article traces how quality assurance is gaining its form and how international trends are understood, transposed and adopted in Norwegian higher education. A contextual understanding is provided through a brief look at how ideas about quality work have developed in Norwegian higher education in the past 10 to 15 years. Empirical data comes from a review of the expert committee reports from the first five national quality assurance audits in Norwegian higher education. The review shows dilemmas inherent in quality assurance as well as issues that might be left out by such systems.

Developments in higher education in most countries over the last decades have moved towards a stronger market orientation. This is also the case in the Nordic countries but at the same time these countries seem to differ from most other countries in the sense that higher education is still connected to welfare state policies. This chapter focuses on the case of Norway. Norwegian higher education is in a state of rapid and thorough transition, which forms a useful ‘laboratory’ for research, but at the same time makes it difficult to distinguish between long-term trends and ‘noise’ created at the time of implementation. Our focus is on the relationship between the funding of higher education, especially the student support system, and access to higher education, both in terms of total enrolment trends and equity. This chapter first discusses why access to higher education is expanding, and also the factors leading to inequitable enrolment. Second, it presents a brief description of the Norwegian context, including the higher education system. Then, after discussing general models for funding of higher education as well as for financial support of students, the chapter presents some information on how Norwegian higher education is funded, including the system for student support. The next section presents some key figures on higher education enrolments, including some indicators on equity, and attempts to relate these developments to funding. Higher education in Norway is at the moment in transition, and the conclusion examines the key elements in the ongoing reform process which may affect access.

The paper deals with the future of Norwegian higher education as part of a Nordic project on higher education futures. To identify future scenarios for Norwegian higher education (HE), the paper uses the theoretical lens of historical institutionalism to focus on scenario building. Like in the other Nordic countries, Norwegian HE and research are characterized by easily accessible and free public HE provision, high participation rates, and a high level of investment in HE and research. However, the question is this: If we look back at the development of Norwegian HE the last decades, to what extent can we expect present developments to persist and to what extent can we expect more or less sharp breaks and deviations from past and present developments? Departing from an institutionalist position, two historically grounded visions and related scenarios are identified: an academic excellence scenario and a national service scenario. The scenarios reflect tensions between different visions of the shape, emphasis, and orientation of HE and research. The empirical focus is on the developments of HE along five dimensions: growth, systemic integration, academic drift, labor market relevance, and governance. First, the conceptual approach is presented, outlining the use of scenarios and an institutionalist approach to thinking about the future of HE. Secondly, the paper outlines the five trends regarding past and ongoing developments. Third, some ideas about future developments are outlined, before the conclusion is drawn.

This chapter provides an overview and analysis of mergers in Norwegian higher education. We distinguish between three phases of mergers: state-initiated forced mergers of regional colleges in the first half of the 1990s, voluntary merger initiatives and mergers between higher education institutions from the turn of the millennium to 2013, and state-initiated forced ‘voluntary’ mergers from 2014 on. In 1994, the non-university higher education sector was reorganised through the merger of 98 professional and vocationally-oriented colleges into 26 university colleges. This was followed by many voluntary merger initiatives, primarily between university colleges, which were planned as a strategy for the merged university colleges to apply for university status. Only four of these processes were completed, leading to a 2014 governmental initiative to further reduce the number of higher education institutions through a policy of forced ‘voluntary’ mergers. By using an institutional logic perspective as a starting point for the analysis of this development, the chapter argues that different logics fit well with mergers as a solution to perceived problems in the sector, and that this makes mergers more attractive throughout the sector.

The point of departure for this article is the ‘chameleon’ aspect of portfolios and the diversity of portfolio models and practices in higher education on the international arena today. Our aim is to investigate the contextual character of this diversity by using Norwegian higher education as an example and to show how macro‐level influences, particularly the Bologna related Quality Reform, have shaped the overall development of portfolio practices. We contextualise and discuss the sudden expansion of learning and assessment portfolios in Norway after 2002. Our data are primarily a nationwide survey of portfolio practices, supplemented by findings in a research evaluation of the reform and previously published case studies. The majority of portfolios in Norwegian higher education can be classified as ‘disciplinary‐based course work portfolios’ and they typically serve a combination of learning and assessment purposes. But within this category we found systematic differences between different educational areas where the main dividing line seems to be between professional and non‐professional education. The underlying research perspective is sociocultural and this directs our attention to contexts, cultures and traditions that shape portfolio development and practices rather than to individual differences (micro level).

Much research has been undertaken to investigate the cultural, structural and, to some extent, the economic effects of mergers in higher education. However, surprisingly little research has been done on why higher education institutions decide to merge. This article identifies and discusses a number of structural factors that may play a role when reaching a merger agreement. By drawing on a series of merger initiatives in Norwegian higher education, the article shows that merger processes involving more than two institutions dramatically reduces the chances of reaching a merger decision, and that a number of other factors may also play a negative role. The article concludes by reflecting upon the complex conditions surrounding strategic merger processes, and by identifying some practical implications for institutions involved in merger processes.

On October 4, 1914, The Norwegian Correspondence School (NKS) accepted its first student, a woman, who, for a fee of NOK 10, registered for two courses (Amdam and Bjarnar, 1989). Seventy-five years later, distance education has become an important part of Norwegian higher education. However, there are several reasons why distance teaching did not gain acceptance in Norwegian higher education earlier. One of is the well-known skepticism of distance teaching as a strategy, the other was the adoption of other modes of making higher education accessible to more people, such as offering part-time studies and de-centralized study programmes in locations without higher education institutions. In Norway, because geography has been more of an obstacle than social class, might help explain the greater focus on building traditional education institutions during this period (Støkken 1999).

ABSTRACTQualification frameworks are spreading rapidly, not least in Europe following the introduction of the European Qualification Framework. The impact of such frameworks are contested, and the article contributes to this debate by analyzing how a selected group of different study programs in Norwegian higher education is adapting to the newly launched national qualification framework. The findings show that there are distinct differences as to how universities and colleges, as well as how different disciplines write up their study programs according to the new framework. In the conclusion, we discuss the implication of the findings for current debates about the relevance and function of qualification framework in higher education.

Performance agreements in higher education are seen as a promising steering tool in many countries, including Norway. The aims of the performance agreements in Norwegian higher education are to enhance quality and diversity through clearer institutional profiles and better division of labour between institutions. An expert group that carried out an assessment of the funding system recommended the Norwegian Ministry of Education & Research to implement institutional multi-year performance agreements to enhance quality, diversity and cooperation. In 2016–17 the Ministry implemented an incremental process covering initially five plus other five pilot institutions. This article gives an overview of the context, process and framework of performance agreements at the national level as well as how this new steering tool is being handled in one of the pilot institutions. It focuses on the implementation process and is based on qualitative observations and written communication between the Ministry and the pilot institutions. Although, it is still too early to evaluate the results and the impact of performance agreements in Norwegian higher education, the experience so far indicates that it seems to be possible through negotiations between the Ministry and the institutions to strengthen the institutional profile by prioritizing goals and measures. The content in the pilot agreements differ and no obligatory indicators are part of the agreements. The incremental implementation process has limited the discussion on complementarity. Even though actions towards the division of labour between institutions are an important part of some of the agreements, this seems to be a more challenging task than profiling.

This chapter presents the main aspects and lines of development from approximately sixty years of academic development1 (AD) in Norway. AD is situated in Norwegian higher education – which is its field of practice and field of research. The historical development is traced along three lines: the establishment of a knowledge community and organization nationally, the theoretical underpinnings of the scientific field and the field of practice, and the development of structures and frames for academic development in law, systems and practices to give priority to educational quality. This chapter emphasizes factors that have created a drive in the development of Norwegian academic development; the main arenas for establishing academic development on a national basis, as well as events, cases, and challenges that have created pivotal points and directions for academic development and initiative.

During the last decade, the concept student active learning has gained increased attention in Norwegian higher education. In the international research literature, active learning is contrasted with lectures as an example of passive learning. Moreover, many pedagogical approaches (e.g., flipped classroom, team-based learning) and methods (e.g., case, problem-solving tasks) are elevated, since they should enable student activity. Given this diversity, we present a conceptual systematic review focusing on student active learning in empirical research in Norwegian higher education. We aim at identifying how student active learning is defined, what the underlying theoretical frameworks are, and what characterizes the interventions within this research. Following a systematic approach, 33 studies were included. Overall, our results show that student active learning is most often used as an umbrella term, operationalized through a diversity of teaching and learning activities, and pedagogical approaches. In addition, the literature builds on a range of theoretical underpinnings mostly within the social constructivist learning-theory domain. Surprisingly, there is a lack of consistency between the use of the concept operationalisation through intervention and the underlying theoretical lens used to comprehend the study outcomes. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, two new universities and more than ten regional colleges were founded in Norway. In addition, more than 100 schools and colleges have been upgraded to higher education institutions in recent years, signifying a strong emphasis on decentralisation. Lately, however, this emphasis has shown signs of weakening while at the same time the classical universities have come back into the limelight. Recent constraints on public spending have obviously influenced these changes. Though rich in oil and energy, Norway has increasingly been unable to remain immune from international economic difficulties. Besides curtailing further expansion of higher education, this climate of concern has led to a renewed interest in the contribution of higher education to national economic well-being. A recent government commission pointed to education and research at the universities as important instruments for improving Norway's technical and industrial capabilities and international competitiveness. No major planning document or White Paper on higher education has been published since the early 1970s, and in the last few years the sector, has attracted little public attention or controversy, though the Social Democrats' recent proposals for extended access to higher education as well as for more expensive student loans are notable exceptions. In the last Long-Term Programme, the previous government announced the publication of a White Paper on higher education in the next fouryear planning period (1982-85). With the Social Democrats losing the 1981 parliamentary election, however, and a conservative government taking office for the first time in 50 years, some policy changes in this area are perhaps to be expected. Since 1975, enrolment figures have increased in the non-university part of higher education while remaining at a virtually constant level in the universities. An increase in the percentage of female students as well as a greater influx of older students-many with substantial work experience-have considerably changed the composition of the student body in most institutions. Furthermore, the degree structure has been revised, most significantly at graduate level where an AngloAmerican type of doctorate has been introduced in several fields of study. (Career opportunities at the universities have often been limited, and 'aging without newcomers' has been the rule in many university departments (Skoie, 1976). Even so, there are shortages of qualified applicants for academic posts in

Quality has been a ubiquitous issue in European higher education policy over the last decade. In country after country the issue of higher education quality has been raised, and consequently reforms to ensure and develop quality have been implemented. In Norway, quality as a focal point in higher education policy appeared rather late as compared to other European countries. Specific policies and efforts directed to assuring quality of Norwegian higher education were proposed in 2001, but the debate on quality had been initiated twelve years earlier. Looking specifically on the latest policies on higher education, quality has become the overarching theme, reflected for instance in the name the government gave its latest policy document on higher education, "the quality reform."

The Quality Reform (Kvalitetsreformen), introduced in 2004, is frequently referred to as the most comprehensive higher education reform in Norway. One element in the reform was that higher education institutions could change institutional categories, provided that they fulfil certain minimum criteria and are able to obtain accreditation from NOKUT (the Norwegian Quality Assurance Agency). This initially minor change has had considerable effects on higher education landscape in Norway, where the number of universities doubled from four to eight as a result of the reform. The chapter takes an analytical starting point in four perspectives of reform: reform as design, reform as incremental change, reform as concurrence and reform as a result of interest bargaining. The case highlights the complexity of systemic change initiatives in higher education. Overall, one can observe long-term incremental changes in the system, while closer observation of the reform process shows negotiations and bargaining between actors, as well as other concurrent changes that intertwine with reform efforts and attempts of policy design. Thus, one can argue that this case shows how small changes can also lead to big consequences and that change processes at some point can become irreversible.