In recent years, many European countries have been struggling to balance their national language (L1) with English and the increased emphasis on of internationalization in higher education. Particularly the Nordic countries have questioned if the growing use of English in academia will lead to an attrition of Nordic languages, leaving Norwegian ‘undeveloped’ as an academic language (Brock-Utne, 2001). This has contributed to a growth in policy strengthening. Various institutions, such as the Language Council of Norway and an array of universities have recently created language policies that strengthen the Norwegian language.

However, neither the feasibility of these language policies nor their consequences for (international) employees has been investigated. The current study aims to fill this research gap by investigating employee attitudes toward a new language policy that was introduced in January 2023 at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). It was pitched under the slogan “Norwegian when you can, English when you must”, emphasizing the use and importance of Norwegian at NTNU (see NTNU, 2023).

To contribute knowledge on what stricter national language policies can mean in an international setting, we have conducted an online survey targeted at all employees at NTNU. The aim of this study was to map current attitudes toward the language policies at NTNU among all employees. We distinguish between those who speak Norwegian as, at least, one of their native languages versus those who have one or more other native languages (which we label “international” employees).

Our study was guided by the following research questions:

• What are employees’ perceptions and experiences toward the new language policy at NTNU? 
• Do employees' perceptions and experiences differ depending on language background, i.e., Norwegian native speaker versus international background?

The goal of this study is to uncover tensions between policy and practice in multilingual settings. By exploring L1-dominant policies, we wish to lift various voices in this process and critically discuss how language policies can be achieved through ethical internationalization. This is relevant for all countries that struggle to balance L1 and English in international settings.

To elicit information on employee attitudes, we used a questionnaire that we distributed digitally. The questionnaire consisted of 56 items with open and closed questions. Questions were compiled based on background information (for instance, questions mapping the employees’ languages spoken and how long they have lived in Norway), to determine their awareness of current language policies at the institution (e.g., if they are aware of existing policies), and open questions to express their needs and opinions. The online questionnaire was distributed on the university’s intranet to all employees and students. It was available in English, Bokmål, and Nynorsk (the two official written variants of Norwegian). The study was approved by Sikt, the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. The participants were fully anonymized, and the data were stored on a secure server that only the researchers in the project had access to. We received 705 responses from employees, which accounts for 9% of the total employee population (n = 8,051). Seventy percent of the respondents held a teaching/research position (e.g., Professor, PhD, Postdoc), and the latter 30% consisted of administration, maintenance, HR, IT, and technicians. Approximately 56% of the participants were born in Norway, and 43% outside of Norway. Fifty-five different native languages were reported by participants. The data were analyzed quantitatively (descriptive statistics) in closed questions, and qualitatively (content analysis) in open questions. In the current study, 7 questions were used in the analysis pertaining to attitudes toward language policy. We first asked about awareness of language policy, then asked questions about how NTNU should practice language policy guidelines. For the quantitative analysis, we considered the responses toward seven statements relating to language policy which asked people to indicate agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses of all three questionnaire versions were matched and analyzed descriptively via relying on absolute frequencies. For the qualitative analysis, we investigated three open questions (what participants thought about the language policy, if there were anything they would change about the language policy, and if they had any additional comments). We received responses from 219 participants. The data were analyzed in MaxQDA through qualitative content analysis. The two raters created open codes, then merged these codes into larger themes and double-coded for reliability using the so-called “Gioia method” (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).

Preliminary findings suggest that the employees have varying awareness of the language policy guidelines, and varying ideologies of what a language policy should consist of. 76% of the employees with Norwegian as their L1 were aware of the existing guidelines, whereas only 52% international employees were. The majority of participants agreed that employees should be responsible for learning Norwegian to a B2 level within 3 years of employment (80% agreed). However, However, only 23% of participants agreed that Norwegian should be the main language of instruction at the university. Around a third of respondents wrote responses to the open questions that indicated that they were highly critical of the current language policies at the university, as well as how languages are practiced in the workplace. Many international employees reported feeling excluded. They expressed large dissatisfaction with the Norwegian courses provided, and the lack of time and support to reach level B2 proficiency. Twenty-seven percent pointed out that the L1 policies contradicted the university’s international profile. The findings above suggest a large gap between Norwegian and non-Norwegian speakers in higher education. Using an L1-dominant language policy may lead to internationals feeling discriminated against. If L1-dominant policies are to be implemented, they need to be flexible to allow for practices that are appropriate in a given context, and sufficient time and resources for internationals to learn the majority language. This is particularly important since international employees take on a lot of the teaching tasks. We propose that these are relevant findings for all European countries and beyond with a high influx of internationalization in higher education. Furthermore, we do hope to stimulate a discussion around language policies and discrimination with other European higher education institutions and beyond.

Brock-Utne, B. (2001). The growth of English for Academic Communication in the Nordic Countries. 2001, 47(3/4), 221-233. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. NTNU. (2023). Guidelines of Language Policy for NTNU. Retrieved 22.01 from https://www.ntnu.edu/strategy/language-guidelines