ERG SES H 06, Parallel Session H 06
University policy has changed during the past few years resulting partly from the effects of globalisation and because of the growing objectives set for the higher education. Internationalisation along with the Bologna process, the growing demands of effectiveness, competition, innovativeness, accountability and market orientation characterise the European university of the 21st century. (Ball 2003; Slaugther & Leslie 1997; Clark 1998; Jauhiainen et. al 2009.) Many academics have analysed and studied these political changes. For example, British sociologist Stephen Ball (2003, 215) has used the term policy technologies to describe the new global values in educational policy: the market, managerialism and perfomativity. The new policy technologies represent a whole new paradigm where the supranational actors, such as OECD have a big role in spreading the new values and ways of action. (Ball 2003, 215-218, Kallo 2009.) According to Ball (2003, 220-222), these technologies not only introduce new ways of governance but they also have effects on common values, on the relations between staff groups and on their identities, positions and practices. In this paper, I will concentrate on analysing the case of Finland. In Finland, universities have met numerous new challenges in the past decades. Finnish university policy has got more influence from the supranational policy models especially since the 1990's, which have brought, among other matters, the new ways of governance and management (NPM) (Kivinen, Rinne & Ketonen 1993; Välimaa 2008). In addition, the new Finnish Universities Act (2009) changed the position of the universities and staff and brought new responsibilities, such as the increased economic autonomy.
My presentation focuses on university teaching and teachers in context, where the positions and values are changing and the various expectations directed at teaching come both from outside the university and from the scientific community. In previous research, the focus has been, among others, the contradiction between several different tasks, roles, positions and identities of teachers (Henkel 2005, Taylor 2008; Delanty 2008; Anderson 2006). For example, according to several studies, the relationship between research and teaching is often complex and teaching compared with research is usually seen as a less appreciated task by the academics (Anderson 2006; Ylijoki 1998). However, during the past few years teaching has also gained more and more attention which can be seen, among others in political strategies. For example, the improved pedagogical skills of the teachers as well as quality and development of teaching have become important goals for universities. (Negvi & Lindblom-Ylänne 2003, 26.)
My paper is based on my postgraduate study where I will focus on more detail to the expectations and challenges which the university teachers are facing in their everyday work. In this presentation, I will concentrate in the first research question of my study: What kinds of expectations are directed toward university teachers in the context of the new university policy?
Anderson, G. 2006. Carving out time and space in the managerial university. Journal of Organizational Change Management 19 (5), 578–592. Ball, S. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (2), 215–228. Clark, B. 1998. The entrepreneurial university: demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management 4 (1), 5–16. Delanty, G. 2008. Academic identities and institutional change. In R. Barnett & R. Di Napoli (edit.) Changing identities in higher education. Voicing perspectives. London: Routledge, 124–133. Henkel, M. 2005. Academic identity and autonomy revisited. In I., Bleiklie & M., Henkel (edit.). Governing Knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer, 145–165. Jauhiainen, A., Jauhiainen A. & Laiho, A. 2009. The Dilemmas of the ”efficiency university” and the everyday life of university teachers. Teaching in Higher Education Journal 14 (4), 417–428. Kallo, J. 2009. OECD education policy: a comparative and historical study focusing on the thematic reviews of tertiary education. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. Kivinen, O., Rinne, R. & Ketonen, K. 1993. Yliopiston huomen. Korkeakoulupolitiikan historiallinen suunta Suomessa. Helsinki: Hanki ja jää. Nevgi, A. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. 2003. Johdanto yliopistopedagogiikkaan. In S. Lindblom-Ylänne & A. Nevgi (edit.) Yliopisto- ja korkeakouluopettajan käsikirja. Helsinki: WSOY, 14–28. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L.L. 1997. Academic capitalism. Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press. Taylor, P. G. 2008. Being an academic today. In R. Barnett & R. Di Napoli (edit.) Changing identities in higher education. Voicing perspectives. London: Routledge, 27–39. Universities Act (2009) 558/2009. 24.7.2009. Välimaa, J. 2008. Cultural Studies in Higher Education Research. In J. Välimaa & Ylijoki, O.-H. (edit.) Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education. Springer, 9–25. Ylijoki, O-H. 1998. Akateemiset heimokulttuurit ja noviisien sosialisaatio. Tampere: Vastapaino.
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.