sou · H7B36 · 2019-02-01 00:00:00 — We therefore propose that the government present a for higher education and research once during each term of office, as has been the tradition for research policy over the last decades. We also propose a more dialogue-based, coordinated and long- term framework for the direct steering of HEIs that is done today through annual dialogues and appropriation directives. On the basis of the aforementioned , those aspects that are relevant to direct steering should become the subject of a dialogue process which results in a four-year planning horizon with regards to goals, education tar- gets, commitments, and resources. The dialogues should also add- ress cooperation and division of labour between HEIs. In addition to making steering through the existing appropriation directives more long-term and dialogue-based, we also propose a new instrument in the form of four-year Government-HEI Agree- ments. In the Agreements, targets and follow-up indicators are formulated for each HEI within a limited number of priority areas. While subject to dialogue, targets and indicators should remain the responsibility of each HEI. We therefore propose that the Agree- ment be referenced, but not included, in the appropriation directives decided by government. The Agreements should not, at least not initially, be tied to funding. At a general level, the Agreements aim to promote a substantive dialogue to increase mutual understanding between the government and HEIs. Concretely, the Agreements can be used to address complex and qualitative goals in a way that is focused and grounded in each HEI’s profile and strategies, thereby enabling better goal attainment. Examples of such goals that are mentioned in our terms of reference and which we suggest be addressed through the Agreements are public engagement, gender equality and widening participation. Agreements could also be used to follow up funding increases aimed at quality improvement. As a basis for policy formulation, and for the systematic re- evaluation of policy choices, there is a need for analyses of the HEI sector’s development, the effects of current policy and earlier reforms, as well as international developments. We believe that these kinds of analyses should be produced more systematically than today, and with a greater degree of independence in relation to both government and actors with a stake in policy. We therefore propose that an analytical function be created with the mission to collect or commission independent analyses to inform policy and support the work of HEIs and other actors. It should consist of a group of experts with broad societal representation and be hosted by the Swedish Higher Education Authority. One of the tasks of such a function should be to provide a report to inform the for higher education and research. An important point of departure is that HEIs remain responsible for their academic offerings. We propose that this responsibility be stated in the Higher Education Ordinance, along with the factors that should inform HEIs’ design of their academic offerings, namely: the development of knowledge, student demand, the needs of the labour market, and other needs of society. Both national and regional needs should be included in HEIs’ planning. We also propose a statement of HEIs’ responsibility for life-long learning in the Higher Education Act. Life-long learning is facilitated by the present course-based system in , as well as by the possibility to provide contract education and recently also Moocs. However, in the current resource allocation system, courses and programmes that are flexible for the student are often less economically viable for the HEI. We therefore propose that funding becomes less dependent on the number of students and their credits. Employment numbers for HEI graduates are important to follow, but should not be linked to automatic steering e.g. through the resource allocation system; the rapidly changing nature of the labour market is an important reason to avoid such backward-looking steering. HEIs’ responsibility for their academic offerings means that the government’s steering should be limited to cases where it is warranted by particular reasons and not be too detailed. We propose that the government steer through four-year education targets including the total number of full-time equivalent (FTE) students and the number of completed degrees in professional programmes within health care and teacher training. Steering in the latter case is moti- vated by the high demand for graduates from these programmes in combination with the fact that this demand is partly the result of political decisions. An HEI’s education target could also include special commitments, e.g. regarding fields with few students but a clear national or regional need. Changes in education targets should be grounded in the overall priorities made in the for higher education and research and in the dialogue with each HEI. Cooperation between HEIs to achieve division of labour should continue, as should the work that has been initiated in creating local and regional arenas for cooperation, e.g. regarding health care We also propose a review of how cooperation between HEIs through joint degrees and programmes can be facilitated. Widening access to higher education remains a challenge; not least is there clear underrepresentation of students from non-academic backgrounds in all three cycles. Although much of this underrepre- sentation is caused at earlier levels of education, HEIs can also do more. The Government-HEI-Agreements that we propose are a good form for the government to follow up the HEIs’ work. We believe the HEIs’ mission concerning widening access should also include the doctoral level, which we deem not to be the case as the mission is currently worded in the Higher Education Act. There are at present no state targets regarding doctoral education, nor do we propose any. We do, however, stress that both the govern- ment and HEIs have a responsibility to make judgements regarding the need of doctorates inside and outside academia and whether those needs are being met. A common budget allocation for education and research, which we propose, would provide more flexibility in the design of any steering deemed necessary in the future. Both institutional funding and competitive project funding fill important roles, but we believe that the high levels of competitive funding compared to institutional funding in bring a number of negative consequences. Most importantly, they hamper HEIs’ capa- city for independent strategic action regarding the long-term direction of the institution, for developing strong knowledge environ- ments with close linkage between teaching and research, and for taking a strategic employer responsibility regarding career structure and development including gender equality. While project funding fills an important function, it is also valuable that teachers can be provided time and opportunity for research in other ways than through project funding. We therefore propose that the government and parliament state as a goal that institutional funding should form half of total HEI research income (up from 44 per cent today), and lay out a plan to achieve such a balance within an eight-year period. Such a change can be achieved through new funding to the HEI sector or through redistributing funds from state research councils and other public authorities that provide research funding. In the latter case, we propose that redistri- buted funds be allocated to the various HEIs according to their historical levels of funding from the public authorities in question. The changes that increased institutional funding for HEIs should enable can be monitored through the Government-HEI Agreements. We propose a separate review of state external funding, regarding both organisational structure and funding procedures. The review should include the research councils as well as other public agencies that fund research. We stress the importance of clear drivers for high quality and a strong quality culture that is institutionalized at HEIs and inter- nalized by academics. We do not believe that such a quality culture is best promoted by a high degree of dependence on project funding or performance based funding based on publications and citations; these means of funding risk shifting the focus to certain indicators and outsourcing quality judgements to journals and review panels. How- ever, we do see an important role for research evaluations, as long as they can be adapted flexibly to different HEIs or fields. We therefore recommend that HEIs – together with other actors such as the Swedish Higher Education Authority and the – develop a national framework for research evaluations which drives quality and provides transparency. Public engagement and societal impact HEIs’ work with public engagement and societal impact encom- passes a wide range of activities. In our view, the current statement of HEIs’ public engagement mission in the Higher Education Act is too narrow, not least regarding the societal impact of education. We therefore propose a new wording according to which HEIs should work to ensure that societal benefit is derived from their knowledge and competence. Evaluation and follow-up of HEIs’ public engagement work should in our view be an integral part of the national quality system, and could also be included in the Government- HEI Agreements we propose. We do not believe that public engage- ment or social impact should be made part of a general allocation formula, but propose that the government instead, from time to time, can allocate certain funds through a transparent process where all HEIs can apply. We propose that the role of HEIs in the innovation system become the subject of a separate inquiry. Although much has been done to increase gender equality within HEIs, problems remain in the form of gendered choices of fields of study and unequal opportunities in academic careers or access to research funding. We believe that gender mainstreaming should remain the overall strategy for increased gender equality in HEIs, and that gender equality should be an integral part of the national quality system. We suggest that the government consider giving the Swedish Higher Education Authority a clear responsibility for evaluation and follow-up of HEIs’ work for gender equality, and that indicators and thematic evaluations are developed further for national follow-up and comparisons. Goals and targets specific to each HEI can be included in the Government-HEI Agreements. This allows them to be designed in the way that is the most relevant for each HEI during the coming four-year period. This is in our view a more appropriate and effective form of steering than the current targets for the proportion of women among newly recruited professors, which have the same design for all HEIs, are limited to only professors, are set at the aggregate level (which may hide imbalances in different fields) and are preceded by limited dialogue. These targets should be abandoned in favour of a more HEI-specific steering through the Agreements. In our view, resource allocation for strong and responsible HEIs should combine freedom in resource use, including between different parts of their mission, with responsibility for resource efficiency and quality. It should enable differences between HEIs so that they can work in different ways towards partly different goals and missions. It should also build on professional responsibility through a sensitivity to how incentives or other steering signals affect the intrinsic motivation and the culture of quality and responsibility which must form ’s mission. When HEI issues are being discussed, financial incentives are often proposed to solve a particular problem. We see risks with a development toward more and more incentives for different issues, e.g. concerning their effect on other parts of HEIs’ mission, the risk of homogenisation of the HEI landscape and the risk of crowding out of intrinsic motivation and quality culture. We therefore believe that forms of steering other than performance-based funding are often more appropriate. Such forms of steering include a well- functioning quality system and a stronger base in dialogue. One commonly used form of financial steering is directing funds for some specific purpose. We believe this can be an appropriate form of steering, provided that the process is sound. It should be based on a thorough and transparent analysis of the needs, problems or challenges to be addressed, in which relevant parties participate. Based on the analysis, priorities should be made, with a view to complement or compensate for what HEIs or other actors are already doing. Areas selected must be sufficiently broad so as not to infringe on academic freedom. HEIs should thereafter be given the opportunity to apply, and funds be allocated after a transparent and professional review process. In cases where funds are allocated as part of the general institutional funding, a review should be planned and a time limit should be set for when the specific purpose of the new funding will no longer be followed up separately. If several HEIs formulate joint applications, funds should be divided between their different budgets at the outset. A common budget allocation for education and research Today, the parliament decides on two separate budget allocations to HEIs: one for first and second cycle education, and one for research and doctoral education. In their current form, these allocations must be kept separate according to budgetary rules, i.e. funds for research must not be used for education or vice versa. In order for HEIs to ensure a close linkage between teaching and research, we believe that HEIs need to be able to use their resources in an integrated way. To achieve this, we propose that these two budget allocations instead form one, common budget allocation for education and research. With- in this common budget allocation, we believe that there should still be one portion calculated for education and one for research, but that HEIs should have the freedom to use their total institutional funding to achieve their mission within education and research. The portion for first and second cycle education Today, the entire allocation for first and second cycle education is based on the number of FTE students enrolled and the number of credits they earn. The actual funding for a particular year is thus settled at the end of that year based on the number of students and credits. To increase stability, we propose that this system be replaced with a model where half of the funding cap for each HEI is given as a block grant, and half is settled yearly based on the number of students. The number of credits earned by students is thus proposed to no longer affect funding, in order to facilitate the development of new programmes and life-long learning and avoid incentives to lower requirements on students. The subject-based funding rates in the present system have a number of drawbacks in our view. The subject categories are based on traditional and partly obsolete disciplinary fields, consistency in how each course is classified according to these categories is difficult to maintain, and the different funding rates for different subjects may hamper the development of new and transdisciplinary pro- grammes. We propose a model without subject-based funding rates, where an HEI is instead given a certain funding level and a target for the number of FTE students. This model highlights each HEI’s responsibility for how resources are allocated within the HEI, while providing a more direct way for the government to influence the total number of students. In cases where funding levels are raised to expand a specific programme, the costs need to be calculated with the help of the Swedish Higher Education Authority. The portion for research and doctoral education There is currently a connection between education and research funding in the form of a floor in research funding related to the number of FTE students (000/FTE). To further strengthen this connection, we propose that raised targets for FTE students should be accompanied by increases also in the research portion of funding, with 000 for each new FTE student. If targets are lowered, the same logic should apply. The present indicator-based model for parts of the institutional research funding should be abandoned, and we do not consider perfor- mance-based redistribution of institutional funding to be motivated until balance between institutional funding and external funding has been achieved. If a model for allocating additional funding is needed, a new one should be designed after careful analysis. Which criteria are used, and the relation between them, depends on which goals are desirable, which may shift over time depending on changing circum- stances and political considerations. If there is a need to direct funds to certain areas, we suggest using a model similar to the one used for Areas presented in the 2008 Research , i.e. that HEIs can compete for funds which are allocated after peer review. The government can also attach terms to the funding, e.g. the connection of research to education. HEIs have a number of exceptions from the general administrative provisions for government agencies, most of which we believe serve their purpose and should be maintained. In addition, we believe the government should consider further exceptions in line with its earlier announcements (Govt. 2009/10:149). We propose that the general regulation that is currently included in the common appropriation directive for all HEIs instead be regulated through ordinance, as has been the general rule for govern- ment agencies since 2010. 1Utredningens uppdrag och arbete I direktiven1 till utredningen framgår att vi ska föreslå ett styr- och resurstilldelningssystem som stöder universitet och högskolor och ger dem incitament att utveckla verksamheten i enlighet med kraven i högskolelagen (1992:1434) och högskoleförordningen (1993:100) samt de mål i övrigt som riksdag och regering har fastställt för högre utbildning och forskning. Vi ska göra en samlad översyn av de stat- liga universitetens och högskolornas styrning och resurstilldelning. Vi har alltså att se till universitetens och högskolornas samlade verk- samhet, och till hela paletten av styrningsformer. I utredningsdirek- tiven framhålls vidare bland annat att styrningen ska: •Främja högkvalitativ forskning, utbildning och innovation som leder till samhällets utveckling och bidrar till att möta samhälls- utmaningar. •Stödja och ge incitament för att nå de mål som riksdag och reger- ing beslutat, och kunna hantera målkonflikter. •Ta hänsyn till universitets och högskolors särart och särskilda roll, och tydliggöra ansvarsfördelningen mellan regering och läro- säten. •Ge universitet och högskolor goda förutsättningar att bedriva långsiktig verksamhet, agera strategiskt och hantera omvärlds- förändringar. •Främja profilering, samarbeten och arbetsfördelning mellan läro- säten så att resurserna i systemet används effektivt och det skapas 1Direktiven finns i sin helhet i bilaga 1 och bilaga 2. Utredningens uppdrag och arbete förutsättning för hög kvalitet i utbildning och forskning i hela landet. •Säkerställa kunskaps- och kompetensförsörjningen (inklusive att förebygga eller åtgärda brister i form av för lite utbildning eller forskning inom vissa områden). •Främja samverkan och mobilitet mellan lärosäten och omgivande samhälle. •Främja jämställdhet och breddad rekrytering samt livslångt lärande. Styrningen och resurstilldelningen ska utformas så att den stöder lärosätenas möjligheter att möta de stora samhällsutmaningar som står inför. Styrningen bör utformas så att den effektivt och ändamålsenligt stöder det i den forskningspolitiska propositionen angivna målet att ska vara ett av världens främsta forsknings- och innovationsländer och en ledande kunskapsnation, där högkvali- tativ forskning, högre utbildning och innovation leder till samhällets utveckling och välfärd, näringslivets konkurrenskraft och svarar mot de utmaningar samhället står inför, både i och globalt. Vi ser sammanfattningsvis att målet är styrning som ger lärosätena goda förutsättningar att ta ett självständigt ansvar för att utveckla och för- medla kunskap för samhällets långsiktiga utveckling. I direktiven till vår utredning finns vissa avgränsningar. De förslag vi lämnar ska enbart avse statliga lärosäten. När det gäller SLU ska för- slagen vara begränsade till forskning och utbildning på forskarnivå. Vi ska vidare inte lämna förslag som berör den befintliga examensstruk- turen. Dessutom ska vi inte lämna förslag som rör innehåll eller ge- nomförande av universitets och högskolors utbildning eller forskning. I direktiven påpekas också att våra förslag inte får vara kostnads- drivande i sig eller ställa krav på ökade resurser eller ett minskat antal studenter för att kunna genomföras. Utredningen behandlar alltså inte behovet av utökade resurser för högre utbildning och forskning. Vi har i utredningen sett på högskolan i ett brett samhällspers- pektiv. Dock har vi i utredningsarbetet valt att inte närmare gå in på Utredningens uppdrag och arbete innovationssystemet och högskolans roll i detta, trots att inno- vationsfrågor ingår som en självklar del i högskolans uppgift att verka för att forskningsresultat kommer till nytta. Skälet till att vi inte behandlar innovationssystemet och högskolans roll i detta är att det är en komplex fråga som inbegriper en rad olika aktörer samt regelverk och lagstiftning som ligger utanför högskolans ordinarie verksamhet. Vi menar därför att det är lämpligt att innovations- systemet, inklusive hur högskolans roll i detta ska se ut, utreds i särskild ordning. En utförligare resonemang kring detta finns i kapi- tel 7. Vi vill dock betona att även om vi inte särskilt har behandlat innovationssystemet i vårt utredningsarbete, ingår innovationsfrå- gor som en del av det övergripande ramverk vi föreslår. Vårt uppdrag är alltså brett och omfattande. De förslag som vi lägger i detta betänkande utgår från den övergripande tanken om att en ändamålsenlig styrning ska bidra till att utbildning och forskning ska kunna nå hög kvalitet och bedrivas effektivt. Vårt fokus har varit att utveckla ett övergripande ramverk och principer för styrning och resurstilldelning, snarare än detaljer. Ett sådant ramverk kan anpas- sas och utvecklas i relation till skiftande politiska förutsättningar och omvärldsfaktorer och därmed leva över . Vi menar att de detaljer som behöver utvecklas vidare inom ram- verket lämpligast görs inom . Det gäller också de av våra förslag som avser förändringar i lag och förordning, vilka kräver beredning av juridisk expertis. I vidareutvecklingen av ram- verkets detaljer bör samarbeta med lärosäten och berörda myndigheter. När dagens styrsystem infördes påtalade regeringen att den förväntade sig att systemet skulle utvecklas efter hand. Regeringen beslutade därför att på olika sätt följa upp och utvärdera reformen för att kunna vidareutveckla systemet. Vi ansluter oss till denna tanke, och menar att det är en klok ansats att som nya styrformer införs besluta om hur dessa ska följas upp. Utredningens uppdrag och arbete 1.2.1Möten och diskussioner med högskolans intressenter I vårt utredningsarbete har vi fäst stor vikt vid möten med olika intressenter, av vilka lärosätena naturligtvis varit en part. Förutom lärosätesledningar har vi träffat forskare, olika ämnesföreträdare samt tjänstemän med ansvar för planering och ekonomi m.m.