Academic freedom in Scandinavia: has the Nordic model survived?

Figures & data

Table 1. Measures used for De Jure analysis.

Description	% Weighting
Measure (1): Legal/Constitutional Protection: teaching and research	20
Measure (2): Legal/Constitutional provision: institutional autonomy	4
Composite Measure: Autonomy: internal operation [(3)-(9)]	8
(3) Rector’s Appointment	1
(4) Internal Structures	1
(5) State Funding	1
(6) Commissioned Research	1
(7) Staff Appointments	2
(8) Student Recruitment	1
(9) Degree Accreditation	1
Measure (10): university autonomy: state regulations	4
Measure (11): Private sector constraints on autonomy	4
Measure (12): self-governance: legal provision	2
Composite Measure: Operational self-governance: [(13) - (16)]	12
(13) Existence of Collegial Bodies	1
(14) Composition of Collegial Bodies	2
(15) Senate Composition	3
(16) Strategic Decision Making	6
Composite Measure: Staff powers: appointment/dismissal [(17)-(22)]	6
(17) Dean’s/Departmental Head’s Credentials	1
(18) Appointing: Deans/Departmental Heads	1
(19) Dismissing: Deans/Departmental Heads	1
(20) Rector’s Credentials	1
(21) Rector Appointment	1
(22) Rector Dismissal	1
Composite Measure: Academic tenure protection [(23)-(27)]	20
(23) De Jure protection: contract duration	4
(24) De Facto protection: contract duration	4
(25) H.E. Legislation: contract termination provision	3
(26) Other Legislation: contract termination provision	3
(27) Provision for academic advancement	6
Composite Measure: Academic Freedom: constitutional protection [(28)-(32)]	10
(28) Freedom of speech provision	2
(29) Academic freedom provision	2
(30) Institutional autonomy provision	1
(31) Self-governance provision	1
(32) Robustness of provisions	4
Composite Measure: Academic Freedom: international protection [(33)-(37)]	10
(33) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (free speech provision)	1.5
(34) ICCPR Optional Protocol (UN complaints procedure)	1.5
(35) International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (right to education provision)	1.5
(36) ICESCR Optional Protocol (UN complaints procedure)	1.5
(37) European Convention on Human Rights (free speech provision)	4

Table 2. De Jure Protection for academic freedom.

Country	Total	Academic Freedom	Institutional Autonomy	Self Governance	Job Security	Constitution/International Agreements
Croatia	69.0	20	13	14	4.5	17.5
Spain	66.5	15	8.5	12	11	20
Bulgaria	65.5	15	9	14.5	9.5	17.5
Germany	64.5	17.5	9.25	12.25	8	17.5
Austria	63.5	20	12	9	5	17.5
France	63.0	20	7	6.5	15.5	14.0
Portugal	61.0	10	9	11.5	10.5	20
Slovakia	60.5	20	8.5	12.5	1.5	18
Latvia	60.0	20	10	10.5	3	16.5
Lithuania	59.5	20	11	6	5	17.5
Italy	57.5	10	9	8	11.5	19.0
Norway	56.5	10	12	3.5	18.5	12.5
Greece	55.5	5	4.5	10.5	20	15.5
Finland	55.0	15	15	3	3	19
Poland	54.5	10	9.5	12.5	5	17.5
Romania	53.5	15	8	12.5	5.5	12.5
Cyprus	53.0	10	8	12.5	10	12.5
Ireland	52.5	15	12.5	3	10.5	11.5
Slovenia	52.5	5	8.5	11	10.5	17.5
Czech Republic	51.5	15	8	11	2	15.5
Belgium	49.25	10	8.5	7.5	9.25	14
Luxemburg	47.5	15	9	6	3.5	14
Netherlands	44.0	10	9	5.5	3.5	12.5
Sweden	39.5	5	6.5	3	8.5	16.5
Denmark	38.5	5	9	6.5	5.5	12.5
Hungary	36.0	5	2.5	9	8	11.5
Malta	36.0	0	10.5	6	8.5	11
UK	35.0	5	13.5	0	5.5	11
Estonia	34.0	0	10.5	4.5	1.5	17.5
All: Mean (St Dev)	52.9 (10.3)	11.8 (6.2)	9.3 (2.6)	8.4 (3.9)	7.7 (4.7)	15.5 (2.9)
Nordics	47.4 (9.7)	8.7 (4.8)	10.6 (3.7)	4 (1.7)	8.9 (6.8)	15.1 (3.2)
Non Nordics	53.8 (10.3)	12.3 (6.4)	9.2 (2.4)	9.1 (3.7)	7.5 (4.5)	15.6 (2.9)

Table 3. Actual and recommended minimum sample sizes in the Nordic states.

	Sample Size In the Nordic States
	Denmark	Finland	Norway	Sweden
Bartlett et al. (2001) Recommended Sample	370	370	370	370
Krejcie and Morgan (1970) Recommended Sample	375	375	370	377
Actual Sample	485	355	593	386

Table 4. What is the level of protection for academic freedom in your country?.

	All Nordics vs EU		Individual Nordic Nations
	% Nordics	% Other EU	% Denmark	% Finland	% Norway	% Sweden
Generally low level of protection:	12.4	16.7	9.5	9.0	14.2	16.4^b
Average level of protection:	37.7	39.6	32.9	38.0	42.6	36.0^a,b
Generally high level of protection:	49.9	43.7	57.6	53.0	43.2	47.6^b,c
All (n=5244)	100(n=1786)	100(n=3458)	100(n=483)	100(n=355)	100(n=570)	100(n=378)

All Nordics/Other EU: χ²=25.56, 2 d.f. [C.V.5%=5.991], p<0.001, Cramér’s V=.07.

Table 5. Academic freedom for teaching has declined in recent years.

		% Nordics		% Other EU		% Denmark	% Finland	% Norway	% Sweden
Strongly agree	4.5		7.4		3.8		3.8	4.5	6.1
Agree	19.5		21.3		20.1		22.2	20.5	14.8
Neither agree nor disagree	36.6		32.7		34.3		31.3	37.6	43.1
Disagree	30.6		29.6		33.5		31.0	29.2	28.6
Strongly disagree	8.7		9.1		8.3		11.7	8.2	7.4
All (n=5090)	100 (n=1703)		100 (n=3387)		100 (n=472)		100 (n=342)	100 (n=511)	100 (n=378)
All Nordics/Other EU states: χ^2=21.72, 4 d.f. [C.V.5%=9.488], p<0.001, Cramér’s V=0.07
Denmark/Finland: No Difference Neither Grouping Confirmed		Denmark/Norway: No Difference East-West Groups Confirmed					Denmark/Sweden: χ2=11.64 p<0.02 East-West Groups Confirmed
Finland/Norway: No Difference Low-High Groups Confirmed		Finland/Sweden: χ^2=17.80 p<0.001 Low-High Groups Confirmed					Norway/Sweden: No Difference Neither Grouping Confirmed

Table 6. Individual academic freedom for research has declined in recent years.

		% Nordics		% Other EU		% Denmark	% Finland	% Norway	% Sweden
Strongly agree	5.9^a		7.6		5.9^a		5.2^a	5.8^a	6.6^a
Agree	27.6^a		23.4		28.4^a,		30.3	30.1	20.8^a
Neither agree nor disagree	32.1^a		32.0^a		30.1^a		28.9^a	32.2^a	37.2^a
Disagree	26.4^a		27.9^a		29.4^a		25.4^a	23.7^a	27.4^a
Strongly disagree	8.0^a		9.1^a		6.1^a		10.2^a	8.2^a	7.9^a
All (n=5091)	100 (n=1709)		100 (n=3382)		100 (n=472)		100 (n=343)	100 (n=515)	100 (n=379)
All Nordics/Other EU states:χ^2=15.52, 4df[[C.V.5%=9.488], p<0.004, Cramér’s V=0.06
Denmark/Finland: No Difference Neither Grouping Confirmed		Denmark/Norway: No Difference East-West Groups Confirmed					Denmark/Sweden: No Difference Low-High Groups Confirmed
Finland/Norway: No Difference Low-High Groups Confirmed		Finland/Sweden: χ^2=12.04 p<0.017 Low-High Groups Confirmed					Norway/Sweden: χ^2=10.25 p<0.034 Both Groupings Confirmed

Table 7. Institutional autonomy has declined in recent years.

		% Nordics		% Other EU		% Denmark	% Finland	% Norway	% Sweden
Strongly agree	10.3^a		11.9^a		16.5^a		11.7^a,	6.8	6.3
Agree	36.7^a		30.1		40.0^a		42.5^a	38.2^a	25.6
Neither agree nor disagree	33.7^a		31.2^a		30.8^a		28.7^a	32.4^a	43.5
Disagree	16.0^a		20.9		12.0^a		15.0^a,	18.1	19.0
Strongly disagree	3.2^a		6.0		0.9^a		2.1^a,	4.5	5.5
All (n=5083)	100 (n=1701)		100 (n=3382)		100 (n=468)		100 (n=341)	100 (n=513)	100 (n=379)
All Nordics/Other EU states:χ^2=50.84, 4df [C.V.5%=9.488], p<0.001, Cramér’s V=0.100
Denmark/Finland: No Difference Neither Grouping Confirmed	Denmark/Norway: χ^2=38.10, p<0.001 Low-High Groups Confirmed						Denmark/Sweden: χ^2=62.66 p<0.001 East-West Groups Confirmed
Finland/Norway: χ^2=12.11 p<0.017 East-West Groups Confirmed	Finland/Sweden: χ^2=39.28, p<0.001 Low-High Groups Confirmed						Norway/Sweden: χ^2=18.56 p<0.001 Both Groupings Confirmed

Table 8. Self governance has declined in my university in recent years.

		% Nordics		% Other EU		% Denmark	% Finland	% Norway	% Sweden
Strongly agree	18.1^a		15.2		24.4^a		16.3	17.4	12.9
Agree	32.6^a		25.3		33.5^a		36.6^a	35.9^a	23.5
Neither agree nor disagree	33.3^a		32.1^a		30.7^a		32.3^a	29.3^a	42.7
Disagree	13.5^a		21.0		10.0^a		11.3^a	15.1^a	17.7
Strongly disagree	2.5^a		6.4		1.5^a		3.5^a	2.3^a	3.2^a
All (n=5087)	100 (n=1711)		100 (n=3376)		100 (n=472)		100 (n=344)	100 (n=516)	100 (n=379)
All Nordics/Other EU states: χ^2=97.26, 4df [C.V.5%=9.488], p<0.001, Cramér’s V=0.14
Denmark/Finland: χ^2=10.72 p<0.03 Both Groupings Confirmed	Denmark/Norway: χ^2=12.36 p<0.015 Low-High Groups Confirmed						Denmark/Sweden: χ^2=41.94 p<0.001 East-West Groups Confirmed
Finland/Norway: No Difference Low-High Groups Confirmed	Finland/Sweden: χ^2=22.12 p<0.001 Low-High Groups Confirmed						Norway/Sweden: χ^2=26.60 p<0.001 Both Groupings Confirmed

Table 9. Tenure for academics has declined in recent years.

		% Nordics		% Other EU		% Denmark	% Finland	% Norway	% Sweden
Strongly agree	16.6^a		25.7		24.6^a		22.7^a	8.5	12.2
Agree	27.6^a		30.2^a		33.7^a		32.4^a	24.6^c	19.9^c
Neither agree nor disagree	29.6^a		22.3		24.2^a		25.1^a	32.4^c	36.6^c
Disagree	21.0^a		16.9		15.7^a		16.6^a	26.4^c	24.4^c
Strongly disagree	5.2^a		4.9^a		1.9^a		3.2^a	8.1^c	6.9^c
All (n=5086)	100 (n=1708)		100 (n=3378)		100 (n=472)		100 (n=344)	100 (n=516)	100 (n=379)
All Nordics/Other EU states: χ^2=77.96, 4df [C.V.5%=9.488], p<0.001, Cramér’s V=0.12
Denmark/Finland: No Difference Neither Grouping Confirmed	Denmark/Norway: χ^2=83.84 p<0.001 Low-High Groups Confirmed						Denmark/Sweden: χ^2=63.06 p<0.001 East-West Groups Confirmed
Finland/Norway: χ^2=54.31 p<0.001 East-West Groups Confirmed	Finland/Sweden: χ^2=40.08 p<0.001 Low-High Groups Confirmed						Norway/Sweden: No Difference Neither Grouping Confirmed

Table 10. Chi-Square and Cramer'’s V statistics.

	χ^2	Cramér’s V
What do you think is the level of protection for academic freedom in your country?	25.56	0.07
Academic freedom for teaching has declined in recent years	21.72	0.07
Academic freedom for research has declined in recent years	15.52	0.06
Institutional autonomy has declined in recent years	50.84	0.10
Self governance has declined in my university in recent years	97.26	0.14
Employment protection for academic staff has declined in recent years	77.96	0.12

Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J., & Higgins, C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50. ISSN. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2002.03001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krejcie, R., & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164470030003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar