Teacher educations (to acknowledge their differences I use the plural) are situated in a complex web with relations to both schools, the state and higher education. Over time, teacher educations are given different priorities, supposed to deal with both stability and change (Hallsén, 2013, p. 12), however, it is agreed that “The central task of teacher education is to develop professionals in education.” (Tatoo, 2021, p. 20). Still, definitions of professionals in education and how it is to be acquired differ. This comparative study explores how Swedish teacher students in 2002 and 2026 perceive aspects of teacher autonomy and governance, or discourses of professionalism (Evetts, 2009) during training. Swedish teacher students are an interesting case, since in Sweden teacher educations are the most regulated university programs (SUHF, 2021), while there is a policy intention to increase the scientific foundation for teacher educations (Hallsén, 2026) and raise professional status for teachers (Blomgren & Waks, 2015). Hallsén (2026) regards the somewhat contradictory policy ideas of increased regulations and increased focus on teachers as professionals, a “professional paradox”.

The current study is part of a larger project on teacher educations as assemblages financed by the Swedish Research Council. This study is carried out as a survey to approximately 650 teacher students at different teacher education programs in three universities during a period where teacher educations have contradictory policy demands and are both debated and to be reformed. We compare our findings to a study from 2002 (Calander et al, 2003) which gives us possibilities to compare changes in student perceptions of autonomy and governance in a period where the restructuring from the 1990s including marketization and freedom of choice have been institutionalized in the Swedish educational landscape. It also makes comparisons over teacher education programs and universities possible.

To be able to study teacher students’ perceptions of autonomy and governance this paper draws on Evetts’ (2009) concepts of organizational and occupational professionalism. These ideal types are based on different ways of organizing and legitimizing work, where occupational professionalism, on the one hand, is characterized by collegial authority, discretion, occupational control, trust and professional ethics, hence “operationalized by practitioners themselves, guided by codes of professional ethics monitored by professional institutes and associations” (Evetts, 2009, p. 248). Organizational professionalism, on the other hand, is characterized by managers’ discourse of control, relational-legal forms of authority, standardized procedures, hierarchical structures of authority and managerialism (Evetts, 2008, 2009). The discourse of professionalism can be regarded a “powerful tool to “analyze occupational change and social control at macro, meso and micro levels and in a wide range of occupations in very different work, organizational and employment relations, contexts and conditions” (Evetts, 2008 p. 20). Here, Evetts is used to analyze how perceptions of professionalism is manifested during training. Thereby, this comparative study aims to contribute to knowledge of professionalism in education, more specifically how teacher students during training embrace the professional paradox of autonomy and governance (Hallsén, 2026) and how it has changed over time. The following research questions are posed:

1. How do teacher students perceive teachers’ work in terms of intensified regulatory governance and claims of professional autonomy, and how has this perception been reconfigured between 2002 and 2026?
2. To what extent do teacher educations function as a site for the manifestation of varieties of professionalism across institutional and temporal contexts?

Teacher students are the most common study object in studies of Nordic teacher education (Forsström & Munthe, 2023), however there are less studies where teacher students’ voices are heard in relation to professionalism, which this study takes on. The next section accounts for methods used.

This comparative cross-sectional study draws on survey data from two time periods. The first, dataset consists of a reanalysis of a survey conducted in 2002, and the second comprises a survey administered in spring 2026. Both surveys were distributed to teacher students enrolled at the same three Swedish universities (Calander et al., 2003) using largely comparable survey instruments, still the cohorts differ. The 2002 survey yielded 904 responses and about 650 student responses are expected for the 2026 survey. In 2002 the paper-based questionnaire was distributed on site whereas in 2026 a web-based survey will be distributed on site by members of the research team, largely following the original data collection procedure. In December 2025 a pilot study was conducted, and the data collection procedure will continue during spring 2026. The 2026 study will analyze teacher students’ perceptions of autonomy and governance in relation to student background characteristics, prior school experiences, and career expectations, and compares these perceptions across time, institutional contexts, and teacher education programs. Given the cross-sectional design, the analysis focuses on cohort-level differences rather than individual change over time. First survey variables were theoretically identified departing from Evetts’ concepts of occupational and organizational professionalism. The variables regarded whether teachers or management should control teachers’ work and administration. Frequency tables were displayed and described. Six variables were thereafter identified to create the index “occupational professionalism”. An exploratory factor analysis (KMO = 0.702) confirmed that the constructed index formed a coherent dimension, and the reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.805 for the 2026 survey which was considered good. The instruments of 2002 and 2026 are identical in this respect, and allow for cautious comparisons, even though the cohorts differ. The resulting “occupational professionalism” index captures students’ attitudes toward governance, including perceptions of autonomy, collegial authority, and managerial control. The analysis emphasizes descriptive and interpretative comparisons rather than causal inference, contributing theoretically by examining how professionalism is articulated and negotiated during teacher education over time. In the following section tentative frequency comparisons based on the 2002 survey and the pilot study (2025) will be accounted for.

By January 2026, the pilot study was performed. It was mainly intended to configure the questionnaire and examine its possibilities for future analyses. Therefore, at this point mainly conclusions regarding its theoretical appropriateness can be drawn. The professional paradox of more governance and more autonomy seem to be well represented in the index of “occupational professionalism” (cf Evetts, 2009) with a coherent dimension and reliability analysis which was good. The questionnaire seemed to work well also with respect to the number of minutes spent for the respondents. Frequency tables, that need to be read with caution, indicate that the difference between the 2002 and the 2025(6) cohort seem to be nonexistent. Even though the findings cannot be properly compared yet, it indicates that teacher students in both 2002 and 2026 agree that management should not interfere with teachers’ work, they also agree that it is important to have a teacher education if to manage schools, they do not think that politicians should interfere, but stick to the financial allocation and the same share think that teachers are best suited to judge the quality of education. Therefore, occupational professionalism seems to be embraced. At present, the outcomes of the two surveys (2002 and pilot 2025) seem to be very similar. What questions can be raised regarding teacher professionalism during training over time? Don’t teacher educations influence students’ perceptions of professionalism? A second tentative finding is that teacher students value their teacher education, to the extent that a vast majority in both cohorts find it important that educational leaders have attended teacher education. At this point it is not meaningful to discuss professionalism over time, more analyses are needed, however, the very early findings point to possibilities to learn from teacher education and changes in professionalism.

Blomgren, M., & Waks, C. (2015). Profession och politiska reformer [Profession and political reforms]. In S. Lindblad & L. Lundahl (Eds), Utbildning: Makt och politik [Education: Power and politics] (p. 21−39). Studentlitteratur. Calander, F., Jonsson, C., Lindblad, S., Steensen, J., & Wikström, H. (2003). Nybörjare på Lärarprogrammet. Vilka är de? Vad vill de? Vad tycker de?: En studie av nyantagna studenter höstterminen 2002 till lärarprogrammen i Gävle, Karlstad och Uppsala samt vid de danska folkeskolelærerseminarierna Nørre Nissum och Zahle. [Newcomers to the Teacher Training Program. Who are they? What do they want? What do they think?: A study of newly admitted students in the fall semester 2002 to the teacher training programs in Gävle, Karlstad and Uppsala as well as at the Danish elementary school teacher training colleges in Nørre Nissum and Zahle]. Pedagogiska institutionen, Uppsala universitet. Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247-266. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913309X421655 Evetts, J. (2008). The management of professionalism. In: S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I Hextall & A. Cribb. (Eds) Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 19-30). Routledge. Forsström, S., & Munthe, E. (2023). What characterizes Nordic research on initial teacher education: A systematic scoping review. Nordic Studies in Education, 43(3), 241-259. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v43.5588 Hallsén, S. (2026). Lärarutbildning - statlig styrning och professionalisering. [Teacher education - state governance and professionalization] In Lindblad, S., & Lundahl, L. (Eds). Lärarutbildning, makt och politik. [Teacher education, power and politics]. (pp. 53-71) Studentlitteratur. Hallsén, S. (2013). Lärarutbildning i skolans tjänst: En policyanalys av statliga argument för förändring (Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis). SUHF (2021). En examensordning i lärosätenas regi: Rapport från SUHF:s arbetsgrupp för examensordningsfrågor 2018-2020. [A degree system under the auspices of higher education institutions: Report from SUHF's working group for degree system issues 2018-2020]. Retrieved 20260130 from https://suhf.se/app/uploads/2021/03/En-examensordning-i-l%C3%A4ros%C3%A4tenas-regi.-Rapport-fr%C3%A5n-SUHFs-arbetsgrupp-f%C3%B6r-examensordningsfr%C3%A5gor.-2021.pdf Tatto, M. T. (2021). Professionalism in teaching and the role of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 20-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1849130