This article was downloaded by: [University of Windsor]On: 17 July 2014, At: 15:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rehe20

Governmental steering, reform and theinstitutionalization of student interestin higher education in NorwayBjørn Stensaker a & Svein Michelsen ba Department of Educational Research , University of Oslo ,Blindern , Norwayb Department of Administration and Organizational Theory ,University of Bergen , Bergen , NorwayPublished online: 23 May 2012.

To cite this article: Bjørn Stensaker & Svein Michelsen (2012) Governmental steering, reform andthe institutionalization of student interest in higher education in Norway, European Journal ofHigher Education, 2:1, 20-31, DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2012.683698

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.683698

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Governmental steering, reform and the institutionalization of studentinterest in higher education in Norway

Bjørn Stensakera* and Svein Michelsenb

aDepartment of Educational Research, University of Oslo, Blindern, Norway; bDepartment ofAdministration and Organizational Theory, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

(Received 8 February 2012; accepted 2 April 2012)

The article addresses the relationship between changes in the higher educationlandscape concerning its structure and governance, and the organization of studentinterest representation at the institutional and national level. Based on a historicalanalysis of the development of higher education in Norway, the article identifiesclose links between the re-organization of higher education and the re-organizationof student interests, and how this process is causing a strengthened institutionaliza-tion of student interest organization within higher education in Norway.

Keywords: governmental steering; student interest organization; change;institutionalization

Introduction

In this article, we want to focus on the role and influence of students in the

governance of higher education in Norway. First we will provide an overview of the

historical development of student representation, focusing on the development of its

primary function � representation of student interests through formal participation

in higher education governance. Our argument for doing this is that we think the

organization and articulation of student interest is an understudied and under-

investigated topic in the analysis of the higher education governance systems (see

also Bergan et al. 2004).Second, we will also provide some empirical evidence on the expansion of

organised student interest. Here, we will set out to give a brief overview of student

representation in Norwegian higher education in a historical perspective, and take a

closer look at the organizations which students have formed.

Thirdly, we discuss how recent developments in terms of higher education

reforms have affected student organization and interest representation. Focus is on

processes of structural interest aggregation and mediation in the form of mergers and

the formation of more encompassing student organizations � a process we suggest

may lead to a stronger institutionalization of student interest representation. Our

argument for focusing on such mergers is that we think this is an area which is of

considerable importance to student interest representation. A closer analysis of

student participation can bring about a more nuanced picture of the problems and

possibilities of student interest formation, representation as well as student influence.

*Corresponding author. Email: bjorn.stensaker@ped.uio.no

European Journal of Higher Education

Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2012, 20�31

ISSN 2156-8235 print/ISSN 2156-8243 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.683698

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

In concluding, we will discuss whether and to what extent the current

institutionalization of student interest represents a break or a continuation of past

attitudes and procedures, and indicate the mechanisms through which students can

exert power and influence in the system.

Student organization, representation and influence � structural conditions

Student representation and organization form an important but understudied part of

the European higher education landscape. Yet there are significant national

particularities and variations in the historical development of student representation

as well as the influence which the students and their organizations have been able to

wield. One central issue is the role of the state. In general the state has been a veryimportant determinant for the development of the higher education system at the

national level (Bergan 2003), and how this is governed. We would argue that a proper

understanding of how students are involved and integrated in the governance of the

higher education sector is related to state legislation, traditions and culture (Shils

1997; Tight 1988), and by the ability of students to organize their interest

representation.

We might broadly distinguish between two main types of state governance

traditions � that of the ‘Rechtsstaat’ and of the ‘Public interest’ � based on how therole of the state is perceived (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2004). In the Rechtsstaat model

the state is considered an integrating force, focused on the preparation and

enforcement of law. The process of governing often takes place within a context of

corporative networks and structures. The Public interest model on the other hand,

provides a less dominant role for the state. Furthermore, there is a tendency to

elevate political rather than legal accountability mechanisms. The process of

governing and administration takes place in the context of a plurality of competing

interest groups, and the role of governing consists in being a fair and independentarbiter or referee, not that of the technical expert or the legal expert.

Obviously these models provide very different conditions for student participa-

tion and interest mediation. Public Interest models construct students and their

unions as external pressure groups. The student unions are regarded as the

democratic expression of the collective identities, interests and values of their

members, and the task of the student unions is to represent and articulate the genuine

interest of the student body. Close relations between member values and interests on

the one hand and organizational strategy on the other provide conditions for socialcohesion as well as student mobilization.

The ‘Rechtstaat’ model provides quite a different environment for student interest

representation. The road to student influence goes primarily through state

intervention and state legislation. This provides a potential for student influence,

participation rights as well as autonomy or even self-regulation, as student interest

are institutionalized within the state governance system. In such cases students

unions must not only relate to the life-world of their members. They must also relate

to the structure of political-administrative governance arrangements and institutions.Often this implies to engage in mutual cooperative relations in institutions where the

state, the student unions and other organized actors share room. In such cases, the

student unions have to come up with organizational solutions and strategies that

requires adjustments to two types of ‘task’ environment; that of their members and

European Journal of Higher Education 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

the state (Streeck and Schmitter 1991; Streeck 1987, 1991). Striking an adequate

balance between the logic of membership (micro-social integration) and the logic of

influence (macro-social integration) might be difficult, as demands might be

crosscutting or even contradictory. The ability to extract favourable decisions and

resources is not only dependant on the ability of the student union to represent their

members, but also on the ability to negotiate compromises and build trust.

Considerations of ideological purity and strong demands in the student movementdo not necessarily sit well with routine politics, compromise and mutual cooperation

(Olsen 2005). In addition there would be considerations on the trade-offs between

central administrative efficiency and local democracy. Thus pressures for efficient

interest representation and student influence at the national level would be

circumscribed by pressures of local influence and grass-roots power. This suggests

that there are different roads to influence as well as different problems related to goal

formation, membership orientation, and implementation of strategies. Organiza-

tional structures that are suitable for mobilizing members and grass-roots action

might not be suited for political negotiations carried out by an efficient and

pragmatic student leadership, and compromises that are struck might emerge as

highly unstable. Also changes in institutionalized environments provide problems of

identity and strategy. Structural reforms in the higher education space or in the

institutional structure present unions with new challenges, destabilizing older and

established compromises as well as identities and norms of appropriateness in the

process. It also often means adjusting to or internalizing new state structures and

governance arrangements in internal organizational structures. Reforms might alsoentail increased pressures for more encompassing structures for student interest

representation and mediation. The rearrangement of patterns of student organiza-

tion might come about in several ways. On the one hand, the state would want to

align the parallel structuring of student interest to a reconstruction of the higher

education space. On the other hand, the student organizations themselves would be

inclined to seek a symmetrical organization for lobbying purposes. Organizational

reforms of this type would normally be resisted by actors defending local identities

and interest homogeneity.

In theoretical terms the polar differentiation between ‘Rechtstaat’ and public

service regimes might look clear, characterized by different legal traditions as well as

different state-society relations. It has been argued that many governance arrangements

tend to fall in these categories (Pierre 1995). Still, things are not that simple. In a

number of countries we have noticed a distinct change away from the legalistic form

towards something that more resembles the public service model. The Scandinavian

countries are often presented a mixture of ‘Rechtstaat’ and the public interest model

(Verhoest et al. 2009). But such classifications can easily be expanded. A more fine-grained classification of European administrative traditions would include the

Scandinavian countries, often characterized by their welfare orientation and corpora-

tist networks and structures as well as their egalitarian and democratic orientation

(Painter and Peters 2010; Esping-Andersen 1991), which suggests that, preferably,

student interest and student participation should be related to broader set of issues and

institutions that comprise financing and student welfare in a more general sense.

However recent developments suggest that Norwegian administrative culture

might be changing, closing in on the policies and practices of the public service

model. Key elements in this development could be identified in the international

22 B. Stensaker and S. Michelsen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

reform agenda of New Public Management (Pollitt and Bouchaert 2004). Norway

has increasingly incorporated elements from market capitalism into its governance

systems. It has been asked whether we are experiencing a distinct break with older

traditions, and the view that Norway is a careful and conservative reformer in thefield of higher education (Bleiklie, Høstaker, and Vabø 2000). If this is the case, it

might be pertinent to ask whether or to what extent older policies and practices of

student interest representation and mediation have been affected, and to what extent

we can find indications of a de-institutionalization or a re-institutionalization of the

student interest representation.

The expansion of Norwegian higher education and the emergence of interest mediation

and initial student representation

In general, the modern history of higher education in Norway follows the pattern of

many other countries in Europe. Before World War II, Norway had only one

university and real expansion of the system first took place during subsequent

decades following the unprecedented growth in student numbers. Along with this

expansion of the system demands for democratization and university reform moved

to centre stage of Norwegian political debate during the 1960s. Although the reform

processes proceeded along different routes the direction was similar. Democratiza-tion became synonymous with policies for higher education expansion, and new

policies for educational expansion were devised (Nyborg 2007).

One reform idea was especially controversial � the proposals from the Ottosen

Committee for a new, shorter and modularized programme structure in the late

1960s, where resistance became the major objective for students. Reform of the

internal university governance system did not, however, constitute much of a priority

in student strategies. Actually, strategies towards democratization of university

governance were defensive (Bleiklie et al. 2000;Forland 1996). Pressure for reformcame from the middle tier as well as from the growing technical/administrative staff.

The government, the Ministry, and even some of the professors often sympathized

with egalitarian demands for voting rights; others resigned themselves or succumbed

to the inevitable. The outcome of the process, voted through in Parliament in 1976,

was a representative structure where permanent academic staff were represented by

55�70% of the board members at the department, faculty and university levels;

other academic staff, 5�20%; technical/administrative staff, 10�15%; and the

students, 15�25%.While students may be said to have won the democratic battle for representation,

they lost the battle for a new program structure, and a new type of higher education

institutions emerged during the late 1960s and early 1970s: the regional colleges.

Here, the political reform intention was in line with the German model of

institutional differentiation along the Wissenschaft-technic divide, where specialized

institutions were formed for more practical and applied types of post-upper

secondary professional educations. Only university students qualified as academic

citizens. This pattern of horizontally differentiated post-secondary institutions(universities versus non-universities) was further developed and strengthened under

the educational expansion, protected by the persistent crosscutting political cleavages

of Norwegian politics as well as norms of equality of opportunity and decentraliza-

tion. These schools were gradually redefined as higher education institution. The

European Journal of Higher Education 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

result was institutional differentiation as well as diversification within a relatively

loose configuration of institutions regulated separately or according to category.

Specialized schools for each professional program were regarded as appropriate

solutions (Kyvik 2009).

The organisation and institutionalisation of student interests took place along-

side the expansion and transformation of the Norwegian higher education system inthis period. The Norwegian Student Union (NSU) was formed in 1939. The formal

organization of student interests followed that of the professors and the university

employees, who had formed separate organizations in 1936 (Nilsen 2005).

Characteristically, the student association was built from below on the basis of

local student societies in the largest cities in Norway.

The formation of the Student Welfare Organization in Oslo (SWO) in 1939

marked an important step in the institutionalization of student welfare as well as

student participation. When passing the law on the Oslo SWO, the Norwegian

Parliament accepted the concept that the students and their representatives should

take control of student welfare services themselves. The SWO was organized as a

separate legal subject, autonomously governed by a board but under the auspices of

the Ministry of Education. The task was to take care of the social, cultural and

economic interests of the students. In the governing board the students’ representa-

tives enjoyed the majority vote. The students’ representatives were elected by the

student body/assembly. In 1948, the Oslo SWO regulations were extended to embraceall universities and university colleges. Each student enrolled at a particular

university/university college was now obliged to become a member of the local

SWO. The work of the SWOs was financed by a student fee, subsequently

supplemented by state funding.

An important pillar of the emerging student welfare system was also the

formation of the Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (ELF) in 1948. The

purpose of this bank was to create better financial conditions for student

participation in higher education. The student influence was structured by the right

to participate in the bank’s governance board. The formation of ELF paved the way

for the gradual improvement of students’ ability to support themselves during the

study period and not to rely on parental support. Initially the support system was

targeted towards less well-off students who otherwise would not have been able to

afford to go to university. But gradually this feature of the system was changed in

favour of more universalist practices based on student rights, where the student was

formally recognized as a separate legal subject independent from their parents. The

emerging institutional structure in student welfare provided the university students’organization with a solid and flexible platform as well as a specific identity. This

created a strong overlap between the administration of student welfare and student

policies and priorities. The SWOs provided the Norwegian Student Union with a

financial platform. Democratic safeguards were also devised through rights of

mandate repeal, and student representatives could be held accountable if they voted

against the interests of the student body.

As already noted, students won the battle for representation during the period of

expansion, and occupied new positions in the governing of universities. Whether the

students wielded any significant power in the internal governance of the university is

unclear. The ‘professorial university’ had furnished the professors with a monopoly

on power, based on their formal competence. But the 1905 University Act had

24 B. Stensaker and S. Michelsen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

allowed for student representation on the Faculty Council in matters of special

interest to the students (Forland 1996). However, the foundation of a new university

in Bergen provided openings for all the disadvantaged groups as it allowed for full

representation of all three groups � the professors, other academic staff as well as thestudents � on the Faculty Council (Forland 1996). The ‘imbalance’ thus created

between universities in turn shaped new demands for revisions at the University of

Oslo, where the students together with academic staff below the rank of professor

gained a seat in the Senate in 1955. Still, it is difficult to assess the extent of student

influence exercised through formal arrangements, as available evidence underlines

the significance of informal channels and consultations rather than formal arenas

(Tranøy 1996).

However, in the new regional colleges that emerged a new mix of participationpatterns and organisation of student interest evolved that were quite different from

what the student union had traditionally represented. A number of student

associations and unions were built on the values of this specialized and diversified

institutional structure. They organized on the basis of professional identities, which

provided strong and symmetrical connections between the respective professional

associations, the student unions and the specialized educational institution. Student

union problem definitions and relations were structured by a homogeneous social

space and a style of interest articulation that emphasised a common professionalidentity, and social relations based on loyalty to their profession and to their local

alma mater.

Also within the more established universities organisation of student interest was

fragmented. Different groups concentrated on different areas of student politics. The

groups coexisted within the universities having a quite clear division of labour. In

simplified terms, some focused on the SWOs (local student welfare issues), others at

the student parliament (issues conditioning teaching and learning), while a third

group focused on the NSU (issues related to student financing). All of these arenaswere loosely coupled, providing space for a heterogeneous ensemble of actors and

policies at the institutional level (Jarning 1996). In general, there is much evidence to

suggest that the expansion and a fragmentation of the higher education system led to

an expansion and a fragmentation of the student interest representation.

A number of later revisions in higher education legislation have all confirmed the

students’ rights to formal participation in all central governance bodies of

Norwegian universities and university colleges, at least in principle. In practice,

this is obviously difficult to ascertain. In addition, guidelines for a separate system ofgovernance for the students have been formalized, constructed in tandem with the

levels of the university governance system. Thus separate student bodies have been

established at department, faculty as well as institutional level. Similar arrangements

also apply for state university colleges. They all form compulsory elements of the

student democracy. The different levels of the higher education institutions and their

administration are obliged by law to finance and support the work of these student

bodies.

Higher education reform and the mergers in the organization of student interests

The antecedents of the latest reform wave, emanating from the beginning of the

1990s, could be interpreted as a reaction to the democratization processes of the

European Journal of Higher Education 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

1970s (Bleiklie et al. 2000). New solutions, entailing amelioration and modernization

were found for a series of problems that had accumulated in the development of the

old democratic university model. Hence, during the latter decades, several New

Public Management inspired reforms have been implemented in Norwegian higher

education that has brought about new changes in the organisation of student

interests. For example, the University and College Act of 1989 brought universities

and specialised university institutions under a common legal framework, and the

university College reform of 1992 brought the various college educations and the

regional colleges together under a common institutional ceiling. Through that

process more than 100 different institutions were reduced to 26. The Higher

Education Act of 1995 brought all higher education institutions together within a

common higher education system, and later reform has also opened up for colleges

to become universities, thus changing their organisational identity. All institutions

within the previous regional college system (like engineering, health subjects, teacher

education, etc.) are currently integrated within the state university colleges (Bleiklie

et al. 2000). Alongside these restructuring reforms we can also find attempts to

strengthen the higher education institutions as organisations, providing them with

more autonomy regarding economic, legal and internal governance issues. These

developments could be said to culminate with the Quality Reform in 2004 � the

Norwegian response to the Bologna Process. The attempted reform in governance

structures could be interpreted as a transition process towards an ‘enterprise model’

of the university more exposed to market-driven competition (Marginson and

Considine 2000; Bleiklie et al. 2006). If implemented in full, this reform held the

potential for radical change. When considering the changes in the organisation of

student interest during the latter wave of reform, we can indeed find traces of such

dramatic change. Four different waves of mergers in the organisation of student

interests can be identified in this period.

Mergers in student interest representation at the institutional level (phase one)

While the organisation of student interests at the organisational level can be said to

have been quite fragmented at the universities following the historical development

of the NSU, the SWO, and the more democratic university (The Student Parliament),

the more enterprise characteristics of the university that emerged in the early 1990s

led to a renewed interest for collaboration of student interests at the local level.

Increased institutional autonomy was accompanied by a streamlining of the

decision-making structures of the university, emphasising strong leadership and

strategic management. This meant that the former, more fragmented decision-

making structure was tightened allowing for less discretion and opportunities for the

fragmented representation of student interest. Hence, in all Norwegian universities

stronger collaboration and even integration of the former student interest organisa-

tions took place. For example, at the University of Oslo, a formal merger took place

between the local representation of NSU, the SWO and the Student Parliament �forming one interest organisation � the Student Parliament of the University of Oslo,

from the early 1990s onwards.

26 B. Stensaker and S. Michelsen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

Mergers in student interest representation at the institutional level (phase two)

Currently, a new type of merger is also appearing at the institutional level. Here, the

SWO � which traditionally has been linked to individual higher education

institutions � are now seemingly entering into a phase where local SWOs are

merging. A recent example took place in Oslo, where the SWO attached to the

University of Oslo merged with several other SWOs in the region in 2010, forming a

new organisation encompassing the local SWOs of 23 higher education institutions in

the Oslo area. An interesting aspect of this merger is also that the distinction between

public and private higher education is blurring as a result of the merger since several

SWOs of private higher education institutions are integrated into the new

organization. Another feature of this second wave of mergers at the institutional

level is that SWOs are now covering higher education institutions that are

autonomous.

Mergers in student interest representation at the national level (phase one)

Following the merger of the regional college sector during the 1990s into 26 new

university state colleges, changes were also brought about in the organisation of

student interest at the national level. In 1996 a new peak organization for college

students, the National Association of Students (STL) was formed in which the

former independent local college student organisations finally managed to estab-

lished a unified voice at the national level. Like the NSU, the STL was politically

independent and oriented towards the economic, cultural and democratic interests of

the students. The new student organization gradually enrolled a number of student

societies and interest organizations emanating from the professional schools and

short cycle educations from the regional colleges. Many of these associations differed

widely in their views on appropriate policies and strategies, and in many cases

student union mergers were strongly controversial and contested. Proponents of the

older professional student union identities maintained that teaching training

students and engineering students did not have that much in common, except

perhaps the need for more parking spaces at the new regional college campus areas.

The new student union configuration was formed according to the logic of the new

binary system of higher education. The two student unions organized on the basis of

two different sectors of higher education, two different student identities and two

different educational types of institutions. The STL organized students from the new

university colleges while the NSU organized students from the universities and the

scientific colleges. In size the unions were approximately equal, at least measured by

the number of students; 80,000 each. Relations between the two were characterized

by a combination of protracted conflict and cooperation. They competed for

resources and political priorities closing in on the universities and the colleges. They

wielded different political resources, participated in different corporatist networks

and governance structures in some instances, and competed for representation and

resources in others. In political terms they were located in different positions along

the Norwegian political system of crosscutting cleavages. The universities as well

as the student union mustered support from the towns, while the colleges counted on

the district lobby for support.

European Journal of Higher Education 27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

Mergers in student interest representation at the national level (phase two)

However, the emerging reform agenda had implications that soon blurred the binary

system between universities and colleges. The Higher Education Act of 1995 brought

all higher education institutions together under one common legal framework, while

the 2005 law provided the institutions with new governance arrangements. In that

process the various higher education institutions and types of institutions were

gradually de-embedded from their former legal foundations, reorganized and re-

embedded into a new, restructured and more open higher education space. Through

that same process the space also changed character from a coordinated state

managed system process into a space more defined by market considerations. The

new redefined character of this space allowed for and required strategic action and

autonomous institutions, as positions in the new space along a hierarchical level were

flexible and allowed for institution specific mobility trajectories between the

institutional types available in the hierarchical space. In the new more flexible

institutional landscape the older binary organization of student interest had no place.

Hence, mergers of the two national student interest organisations once again

became an issue. The NSU took the initiative and proposals were prepared based on

arguments that it would be easier for the students to relate to one organization

instead of two. Other arguments also included views that the new organization would

not be susceptible to political ‘divide and rule’ tactics. Instead such issues would have

to be addressed through internal political processes.

However, merger advocates were twice turned down. A positive decision required

a large majority in both unions (3/4 or even 4/5 majority of votes). To the opposition,

the cultural differences between the two student bodies and their organizations

counted more than the combined weight. The critics also feared bureaucratisation,

loss of local power as well as increased affective impoverishment in the student

movement. Who would identify with an organization than represented everything �and perhaps nothing? A teacher-training student from the small periphery institution

in the north of Norway would have next to nothing in common with a student studying

linguistics at the University of Oslo. Still, in 2010 the two student organizations

merged into one encompassing institution, the Norwegian Student Organization

(NSO), representing all students in the Norwegian higher education system. The new

organization hosts a total of 200,000 members (in 2012, Norway has about 240,000

students, of which some are studying at private higher education institutions. The goal

is still to protect the welfare and the interests of all students, to increase visibility and to

provide them with a stronger voice.

Final reflections

It is far too early to assess the workings of the new national union and to what extent

it has come up with a workable trade-off between the logic of influence and the logic

of membership. Still, there are indications pointing to a strong focus on lobbying.

Already the new organization has successfully secured improvements in student

housing, as the level of state funding has been increased and new student houses are

being built. Measured by the relation between the number of votes given at elections

and those enfranchised, Norwegian student democracies are decidedly undemocratic

by any reasonable standard. Normally, the number of votes rarely exceeds 10�15% of

28 B. Stensaker and S. Michelsen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

the student population. Even though the numbers have improved slightly (whether or

not this is due to new voting techniques is unclear) there are no indications that

participation in elections have increased substantially. Even though voting numbers

are low, this does not seem to impinge on the general legitimacy of the student

democracy. At the local level a variety of institution-specific practices of student

democracy are being reproduced within the new organization. The big three (the

student democracies in Oslo, Bergen and Trondheim) have particularly strong butoften divergent voices in decision-making processes. In short, the organizational

structure of the new student union is quite complex and cannot be reduced to the

logic of a lobbying organization. But available data suggest that it is difficult to

sustain grass-roots participation, and it has become increasingly hard to recruit

student representatives and ‘politicians’ to the various student bodies and assemblies.

This situation has precipitated a heated discussion on the issue of ‘perks’ and

increases in the level of monetary compensations for student politicians as well as

formal allocation of benefits in the form of ECTS points for student officials. Last,

but not least, last autumns call for student participation in protest demos and rallies

all over the country did not meet much success.

State reforms moving in the direction of a more integrated and market-oriented

higher education field has provided important conditions for a more encompassing

student union and a stronger re-institutionalization of student interest. In that

process, student organization structures have been aligned to new state structures and

policies. Still, one interesting point is if the student union organization is inthe process of being reconstituted and reconstructed in the direction of an external

pressure group, a feature normally associated with public service countries. This would

imply a more market-led organization, where issues and tensions could be related to

democratic as well as consumer-related perspectives (Michelsen and Stensaker 2011).

Democratization has provided extended formal rights to participation in higher

education governance to the students, and the students have participated as citizens.

The ‘neo-liberal’ focus on the new enterprise university and the new more marked-

based higher education field has apparently not led to the weakening of student

participation rights one perhaps might have expected. In fact, the students and their

unions played an important part in the political processes leading up to the quality

reform. It is obvious that the customer concept captures a significant aspect of student

life and student perceptions, at least as an analogy. Students have become more

demanding about the quality of their courses, teaching, assessment, as well as

facilities. If they have concerns in their studies, they are encouraged to express their

opinion. They are frequently surveyed in order to determine what they like or what

they do not like about their courses. In short, their preferences and actions as well as

their results have become much more important to the higher education institutions(Kyvik 2009). The new consolidated student union has also provided students with a

stronger and more unison voice. With respect to the recent merging of SWO at the

institutional level, one can also notice that students are taking the lead in re-

organizing their interests, and that they are now forming powerful local interest

representation across the borders of autonomous higher education institutions � of

which some are only in the early stages of increased collaboration and integration.

The prospects of wielding power as customers in a quasi-market structure can be

said to have had considerable temptations for the students and their new interest

organization. But the move towards market-based solutions has also presented

European Journal of Higher Education 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

problems for re-institutionalization of student interest. The SWOs were formed

through the policies and practices of the social democratic regime, with a monopoly

on student services and student self-governance as institutional cornerstones. Also

these structures have been exposed to significant politicization processes, where SWO

monopolies on student services as well as student majority control of such

institutions have been contested, and more market-based reforms suggested.

Furthermore, rights of mandate repeal regarding student representatives in SWO

governance board, an important feature of student democratic control of their

representatives, does not necessarily sit well with prevailing New Public Management

ideas of managerial autonomy in professionalized service providing organizations.

The student organization(s) has successfully been able to fend off such proposals sofar. But, they often find themselves at both ends of the table, having the roles of both

service providers and representatives of the consumers.

In general, our analysis points to a strong relation between governmental steering

and reform attempts and the (re-)organisation of student interest. The many mergers

documented in Norway following the latest wave of reform also suggests a

strengthened institutionalization of student interests where the historical legacy of

student interests related to welfare and financing � the establishment of multi-

institutional SWOs at the local/regional level, and the establishment of NSO at the

national level � are further enhanced through new organizational arrangements. The

particular interweaving between the students organizations and the state still seems

to shape the processes and structures of student participation and modify market

reforms. However, the mergers have � so far � not solved the historical tension

between the democratic and consumer dimensions of student interests, and the new

‘super-organizations’ at local and national level may also run the risk of losing their

legitimacy by the student members on the shop floor.

Notes on contributors

Bjørn Stensaker is professor of higher education at the Department of Educational Research,University of Oslo. His research interests are related to studies of governance, quality andchange in higher education, and he has published widely on these issues in a number of journaland books. His current projects are focusing on strategic development of universities, and onleadership development and capacity building in higher education.

Svein Michelsen is associate professor at the Department of Administration and OrganizationTheory of the University of Bergen, Norway. His field of research is primarily related to thestudy of educational policy in higher education, vocational training and relations betweeneducation and work. He is presently participating in the EUROHESC project ‘TransformingUniversities in Europe’ (TRUE), a comparative investigation on the transformation ofuniversities in eight European countries, financed by the European Science Foundation

References

Bergan, S., A. Persson, F. Plantan, S. Musteata, and A. Garabagiu. 2004. The university as respublica � Higher education governance, student participation and the university as a site ofcitizenship. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Higher Education Series.

Bleiklie, I., R. Høstaker, and A. Vabø. 2000. Policy and practice in higher education. London:Jessica Kingsley.

Bleiklie, I., H.-E. Ringkjøb, and K. Østergren. 2006. Nytt regime i Variert landskap. Ledelseog styring av universiteter etter Kvalitetsreformen. Evaluering av Kvalitetsreformen,

30 B. Stensaker and S. Michelsen

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4

Delrapport 9. Oslo: NIFU-STEP/Rokkan-senteret. [A New Regime in a Varied Landscape?Governance and Steering of Universities after the Quality Reform. Evaluation of theQuality Reform. Report nr. 9 Oslo: NIFU-STEP/Rokkan Centre for Social Research.]

Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Forland, A. 1996. Universitetet i Bergens historie 1946�1996. In Universitetet i Bergenshistorie, vol. I. Bergen: Universitetet i Bergen.

Jarning, H. 1996. Litt av en marsj. Studentpolitikk mellom rutinepolitikk og rutinepolitikk. InNorsk studentunion: 1936�1996: 60 Ar. Oslo: Norsk Studentunion. [Quite a March.Student policies between routine politics and routine politics. In The Norwegian StudentUnion 1936�1996: 60 years. Oslo: The Norwegian Student Union: 69�80].

Kyvik, S. 2009. The dynamics of change in higher education: Expansion and contraction in anorganisational field. Dordrecht: Springer.

Marginson, S., and M. Considine. 2000. The enterprise university. Melbourne: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Michelsen, S., and B. Stensaker. 2011. Students and the governance of higher education inNorway. Tertiary Education and Management 17, no. 3: 219�31.

Nilsen, Y. 2005. En sterk stilling? Norsk Forskerforbunds historie 1955�2005. Bergen: Bjørke ogVigmostad. A Strong Position? [The History of the Norwegian Association of Researchers1955-2005 Bergen: Bjørke and Vigmostad.]

Nyborg, P. 2007. Universitets- og høgskolesamarbeid i en brytningstid: femti ars utvikling. Oslo:Unipub.

Olsen, J.P. 2005. The institutional dynamics of the (European) university. Arena WorkingPaper Series 15/2005. Oslo: Arena/University of Oslo.

Painter, M., and B.G. Peters. 2010. The ‘analysis of administrative traditions’. In Tradition andpublic administration, ed. M. Painter and G. Peters, 3�16. Palgrave: MacMillan:Basingstoke.

Pierre, J. 1995. Bureaucracy in the Modern State; An Introduction to Comparative PublicAdministration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2004. Public management reform. A comparative analysis. 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shils, E. 1997. The calling of education. The academic ethic and other essays on higher education.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Streeck, W. 1987. Vielfalt und interdependenz. Uberlegungen zur rolle vom intermadiarenOrganisationen in sich andernden Umwelten. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie undSozialpsychologie 4: 452�70.

Streeck, W., and P.C. Schmitter. 1985. Community, market, state � and associations? Theprospective contribution of interest governance to social order. In Private interestgovernment: Beyond market and state. SAGE-series in neo-corporatism, ed. W. Streeck andP.C. Schmitter, 1�29. Sage Publications: London.

Streeck, W., and P.C. Schmitter 1991. From national corporatism to the single Europeanmarket. Organized interests in the single European Market. Politics & Society 19: 133�164.

Tight, M. 1988. Academic freedom and responsibility. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Tranøy, K.E. 1996. En studentpamps erindringer fra det første akademiske etterkrigsaret. In

Norsk studentunion: 1936�1996: 60 ar. Oslo: Norsk Studentunion. [Memories of a TopBrass Student from the First Post-War Year. In The Norwegian Student Union; 1936�1996.60 years. Oslo: The Norwegian Student Union 13�15.]

Verhoest, K, P.G. Roness, B. Verschure, K. Rubecksen, and M. NacCarhaigh. 2009. Autonomyand control in state agencies. Palgrave MacMillan: Basingstoke.

European Journal of Higher Education 31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

inds

or]

at 1

5:52

17

July

201

4