Clas Hättestrand: Evaluations – a challenging part of our work

Words from the management: Many of the recommendations made in evaluations require the establishment of new administrative procedures at the higher education institutions.

Clas Hättestrand, Vice President. Photo: Sören Andersson


In 2024, the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) carried out a thematic evaluation of collaboration by the the higher education institutions (HEIs). I wrote about this almost a year ago in Words from the Management. At that time, I stated that I am confident that our very broad and intensive collaboration activities ensure that we live up to the provisions of the Swedish Higher Education Act, which state that we must work to ensure “… that the knowledge and expertise found at the higher education institution bring benefit to society” (Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Swedish Higher Education Act). The evaluation has now been finalised and the results published. So, how did it go? Did we get passing marks?

Yes, we did. With UKÄ’s current model for thematic reviews, everyone is, in practice, approved (i.e. given the assessment “high quality”), but the evaluation also makes a number of recommendations for each HEI, sorted by what we “should” and “can” do to become even better. What we do with the recommendations will then be followed up in a couple of years, when we are expected to submit an action report to UKÄ on what we have done for each “should” recommendation.

While passing a review is, of course, positive, the problem seems to be that this is not enough. This is particularly evident in these thematic evaluations, where elements of our activities are evaluated one by one. For example, many of the recommendations made require new administrative procedures to be put in place at the HEIs. This at a time when increased control and increased administrative procedures are putting greater and greater strain on the HEIs, as illustrated by the reports on increased bureaucracy published by the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions’ (SUHF) analysis function over the past year, and which Deputy Vice President Yvonne Svanström wrote about here in Words from the Management on 18 November.

One example of such increased administration is that UKÄ’s evaluation report emphasises in several places that collaboration needs to be given a more prominent place in the follow-ups carried out at the HEIs, as the HEIs often follow up their collaboration in connection with regular reviews of education and research, which look at many different aspects simultaneously.

Considering the evaluation theme, it may seem only natural that UKÄ and the assessment team in this case point out that collaboration should be given more space in the follow-up processes. But when similar reviews have been conducted of the HEIs’ work on other assignments that follow from the first chapter of the Swedish Higher Education Act, the same criticism is made: The HEIs should devote more resources to following up work on, for example, broadened recruitment and sustainable development, and we can expect the same recommendation in future evaluations of work on internationalisation, gender equality, lifelong learning, etc. However, the HEIs are working with limited resources, and must also comply with the Government Agency Ordinance’s (Myndighetsförordning) requirements on working efficiently and being economical with government resources. If HEIs were to follow all the recommendations made in this and other similar evaluations, this work would quickly consume the resources that are needed for the core tasks of research and education.

Naturally, it is fundamentally positive to have one’s activities scrutinised and to receive suggestions for improvement, but it is important to handle the results of this evaluation wisely. Just because we can do things that would be good does not automatically mean that we should do them. We need to balance these recommendations and suggestions against other needs of the university and see where our finite resources are most useful.

 

This text is written by Clas Hättestrand, Vice President. It appears in the section “Words from the management“, where the management take turns to write about topical issues. The section appears in News for staff.

Last updated: 2025-01-20

Source: Communications Office