Internationalization as myth, ceremony and doxa in higher education. The case of the Nordic countries between centre and periphery

ABSTRACT

The article deals with the validation of the internationalization imperative in higher education institutions (HEIs) of the Nordic countries. I focus on both the goals and motives behind activities supporting internationalization, but also on the manner of their habitualization and institutionalization in the practice of academic administration and organizational management. The issue of legitimization of institutional changes is addressed by means of the rationalized myths that create durable dispositions for specific practices, changes in procedures and attitudes in a given socio-political setting. I draw on empirical examples that include practical solutions and strategies developed under the conditions of semiperipheral positionality of the Nordic states. This perspective makes their internationalization policies an interesting frame of reference for other countries and the paper concludes by pointing to the latest trends that can serve either as an inspiration or a warning for other states. The Nordic countries offer an example of how institutionalizing the ‘strategic gains’ narrative from globalization may lead to a recalibration of an earlier knowledge regime along with attempts to change centre-periphery relations, including the reframing of priorities and rationalities of different stakeholders in higher education.

KEYWORDS:

• Rationalized myth
• internationalization of higher education
• Nordic states
• development narratives
• habitualization of international norms in semiperipheral states

Introduction

The current paradigm of internationalization of higher education (HE) entails profound and often irreversible changes in the socio-cultural legitimacy of the university’s operation, its structure and everyday functioning. As a consequence of globalization, the social, economic and cultural roles of HE and science are fundamentally changing, the universities being expected to reconcile their increasingly transnational action space with their national and local embeddedness and functioning (Hildebrandt-Wypych, 2009; Robson & Wihlborg, 2019). Internationalization has become a strategic marker and an essential element affecting all HE actors, and it is an instrument of institutional change, noticeable in organizational practices and narratives (Dubois et al., 2016).

In this paper, I analyse the legitimation of the internationalization imperative of universities in the Nordic countries in relation to teaching and, to a lesser extent, in connection with scientific research. I am interested in the motives behind its implementation, but also the way it is routinized, habitualized and internalized as a managerial practice in organizations. I analyse internationalization as a myth legitimizing institutional change and even the construction of a new social order (Zwierżdżyński, 2018) which, at the same time, creates dispositions to practical actions, changing procedures and attitudes.

Such an analysis is of particular importance for all countries located on the periphery or on the semiperiphery of the centres of the world economy and knowledge. In my research, I analyse the practices of academic institutions in the Nordic countries, their common denominator being semiperipherality in relation to European and global centres of economy and knowledge. Although they deal differently with their positionality, they all experience a ‘dilemma of acting out scripts that are only partly of their own making’ (Ballinger, 2017, p. 55).

Internationalization as a key to strategic organizational changes in higher education

Institutions of higher education (HEI) perceive internationalization as a guiding contemporary phenomenon but, depending on the degree of openness of a given country to trends in the external environment, they often frame it either as an opportunity or a threat. This contributes to changes in organizational behaviour and is also motivated by the Lisbon Strategy and the Bologna Process, which through different disciplining technologies provide ‘monitored coordination’ (Brøgger, 2019, p. 80) of how academic institutions should cope with competition triggered by the globalization process. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the ‘internationalization imperative’ in HE (Altbach, 2013) has been accepted and constantly validated as a factor determining an institution’s position in the rankings (Hazelkorn, 2017). This imperative of internationalization can be underpinned by various premises, such as, for example, idealism, instrumentalism or educationalism. The adherents of idealism underscore a better mental and educational adaptation to life in the global world, the instrumentalists emphasize deliberate attempts to unify standards towards the long-term goal of economic profit, while educationalists stress that traditional Bildung and Ausbildung cannot be complete without exposure to the international environment (Stier, 2004). All these premises lead to recognition of the international profile of universities as one of the integral components of their institutional identity, most often buttressed by an English-language administrative and educational framing.

The history of organizational changes in HE in smaller, peripheral or semiperipheral countries shows various motivations to implement new standards based on ideas coming from abroad. In order to explain the mediation of the internationalization imperative, I use the perspective of ‘rationalized myth’ understood as an acceptable narrative presenting formal structures ‘as rational means to the attainment of desirable ends’ (Meyer & Rowan, 1977, p. 345) including, for example, institutional changes. When the adaptation of internationalization policy is driven by organizational ‘myth and ceremony’, it can be comprehend as an emulation of norms. Similar to organizations adopting practices for ceremonial purposes rather than to meet technical requirements, peripheral or semiperipheral countries might adopt policies and institutional scripts for reasons of global legitimacy. In such a situation the symbolic function of emulating the prescriptions of the central countries replaces the technical functionality of policies.

Often the adaptation of external norms or scripts happens when they appeal to the normative expectations of prominent foreign elites, rather than when they answer local needs or solve local problems. This logic has been observed in many studies of the global diffusion of policies, institutions, and organizations, with peripheries or semiperipheries adapting to maintain legitimacy and gain prestige (Grönholm & Jetoo, 2019; Haas, 1993; Wejnert, 2005). With the growth of the peripheral agent’s closeness to the core, the desire to associate with the core through symbolic actions increases (Weber et al., 2009). Accepting ideational toolkits from the centre also occurs when peripheral elites are co-opted to global professional networks and become a part of the epistemic communities exerting normative institutional pressures (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Haas et al., 1997).

Following Marta Shaw, I do not perceive the rationalized myth as a true or false narrative, but as a tool to naturalize a given construction of reality, conditioning organizational behaviour, especially in an uncertain institutional environment and, when there is a need, to legitimize actions (Shaw, 2019). This perspective allows for an analysis of how ideas and ideologies adopted in international debates as norms and recommendations are transferred as desirable and rational institutional solutions to a given country, in order to legitimize the construction of a social order even if they do not necessarily fit to the specific context of given socio-temporal needs.

Therefore, I regard internationalization as a rationalized myth for universities operating in an environment in which they are constantly confronted with new international standards, as well as recommendations and rankings that define their organizational framework and methods of operation, even if these do not necessarily contribute to increasing their efficiency (Christensen et al., 2007, pp. 57–58). It is both a process of adopting external evaluation criteria (e.g. ranking indicators) and an internalized goal, determined on the basis of a rationalized myth and doxa (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 164; Schriewer, 2009, p. 34;) that are used to achieve other socially significant goals, for example in public policy. This myth allows an ad hoc approach to make sense of action in accordance with rational premises, but also to construct post hoc ‘sacred’ practices through an empirical reduction of the complexity of problems and the implementation of solutions achieved in this way. Rationalizing a myth also influences the naturalization of its self-referentiality, thanks to which it is easier to explain to the public the sense of a given policy and to legitimize it. Over time, the legitimization activities may become unnecessary (Colebatch, 2018, pp. 64–65). Following this path, internationalization in peripheral and semiperipheral countries should be regarded as an extraordinary standard or, when framed within Pierre Bourdieu’s theory, it becomes the modus operandi, i.e. ‘principles of production of this observable order’ (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 72) in which social agents reject what is already rejected, and accept the inevitable. In Bourdieu’s own words, ‘agents [are inclined] to make a virtue of necessity, that is, to refuse what is anyway refused and to love the inevitable’ (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 77).

Material, theory and method

The temporal framework for this paper spans over four decades, with particular focus on the past twenty years. The research material consists of three parts: 1) topical analyses and literature concerning internationalization generated in the Nordic countries (self-reflective discourses), 2) internationalization strategy program documents that have been implemented (institutionally embedded narratives), and 3) studies and recommendations of expert committees dealing with this issue. With regard to the first part, reviewing Nordic scholarship is necessary to examine the changing content of internationalization discourses over time, reflecting both societal development in general and sectoral development in higher education in particular. For instance, the discourse over Englishization, first represented as an opportunity, then naturalized as doxa and eventually perceived as an ambivalent risk for the national languages in academia (Dimova et al., 2021; 146–48; Trifuljesko & Choi, 2022, pp. 33–41) is a case in point. Regarding the second part, HE institutions and different agencies have integrated internationalization in the narratives they live by and made them an integrated part of their managerial practice. Among others, examples of materials from a large institution, the University of Helsinki as well as a significant Swedish agency, STINT, the Swedish Foundation for the Internationalization of Cooperation in Research and Higher Education are considered in this paper. Regarding the third part, engaging with expert committee recommendations, as for instance the 1972 Swedish Internationalization Committee, this is justified in light of the expert knowledge being actively used in public policy making in Northern Europe (Christensen & Holst, 2017; Johansson, 1992; Nørgaard et al., 2009; Tellmann, 2016). In connection with all the three parts, the identification of the textual units for analysis has been based on a selective focus including reconstruction of the case history, key critical events, and on identifying a sequence of causal relations between the actions and decisions of some key institutional actors, which Cohen et al. (2018, pp. 664–65) suggest for narrative approaches to data analysis. I have focused on materials and agents that have constructed and naturalized the internationalization of HE as a form of meta-narrative, or ‘[hyper] hegemonic discourse, constituting the boundary conditions of communication in a given social field and establishing […] hierarchy, power relations and subordination among many development discourses that simultaneously produce their own system of meanings and symbolic power’ (Dziedziczak-Foltyn & Musiał, 2015, pp. 1–12).

I consider the meta-narrative of internationalization to be a special doxa, i.e. - according to Bourdieu’s approach – taken as an obvious, unreflected (and often unquestionable) set of beliefs defining what is considered valuable in the field (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 68). My assumption is that it has now become a self-evident principle that defines the field. In addition, it is a constitutive practice of the academic and institutional habitus, thus generating behaviours and dispositions, while actors in the field are (more and more often) unaware of its existence and effects. Doxa does not need a justification, but as a commonsensical set of fundamental and internalized beliefs, it can impose certain practices and views (Deer, 2008), and ‘make confrontation, dialogue, competition and even conflict possible’ (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 98).

The purpose of my research is not to prove the existence of the internationalization doxa, but to analyse the process and factors that lead to the habitualization of its practices and its validation as a functional myth. This habitualization can be understood sociologically as a ‘consciously planned action that becomes a routine in the sense that the action can later take place without further conscious planning’ (Bongaerts, 2018, p. 255), while the phenomenological and cognitivist tradition draws attention to the mechanism of gradually becoming accustomed to specific stimuli that trigger a cognitive routine through their frequent appearance or their appearance in an appropriate intensity (Fife & Kardela, 1994, p. 14; Kajfosz et al., 2018, p. 113).

When internationalization is understood as a modus operandi, that is ‘the mode of generation of practices’ (Bourdieu, 2013, p. 72), and as doxa, that is an ‘attitude to the world in which we are immersed and about the reality of which we are convinced’ (Lorenz, 2002, p. 13), it becomes an example of the socially obvious and undisputed hegemonic discourse that can be researched by means of discourse analysis. To this end I draw on methods of narrative analysis (Bo et al., 2016; 129–48Larsson & Sjöblom, 2010; Riessman, 2008). On the one hand, I analyse the narratives of the documents available from government ministries and advisory institutions. On the other hand – to verify their effectiveness – I analyse examples of the implementation strategies used in institutions. Such implementation may, for instance, manifest itself in innovative organizational practices. In my modified analysis of the narrative, I first of all pay attention to ‘what’ the contents of the documents are, not ‘how’ they have been articulated. In the institutional analysis, informed by earlier studies of Nordic academia, I cite examples representative of the countries covered by the study. In addition, in view of the meta-narrative properties of internationalization, I also take into account other public policies that have an impact on HE.

Engaging with the theory: different dimensions of internationalization in higher education

For the purposes of this article, it is worth noting the answers given to the question of whether internationalization is an unintentional effect of globalization or an instrument for coping with it. These answers are not clear-cut and reflect the existing dispute among researchers in HE (Tight, 2019). On the one hand, it is a truism to say that the international nature of the creation of scientific knowledge and educational experience is as old as the idea of the university itself (Slotten et al., 2020). After all, it is not difficult to imagine that without the international exchange of thoughts, ideas and researchers in various constellations of international thought collectives, it would be impossible to make significant discoveries and promote research in the field of didactics. On the other hand, many researchers recognize that it was first of all in the interests of the dominant social strata, then the nineteenth century nation states, to develop the modern university (Mihut et al., 2017, p. 11; Olechnicka et al., 2019).

The normative definition of HE internationalization stems from the widely held assumption that this process is linear and inevitable. The definition is based on the belief that the phenomenon itself is external to institutions which, previously operating in the systems of nation states, were ‘non-international’ and, due to changing conditions, had to adapt and become stakeholders in the internationalized HE environment, adopting certain patterns and values (Larsen, 2016, p. 4). While some researchers emphasize the better quality of educational systems that we will obtain thanks to the ‘enlightenment’ effects of internationalization (Henze, 2014), others state that the primary goal of this activity is to make a significant contribution to social development (De Wit et al., 2015, p. 283), both nationally and globally.

According to the definition currently considered to be most appropriate, internationalization is:

the intentional process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education, in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society.

(De Wit et al., 2015, p. 283)

This widely accepted definition has changed over time and now it refers both to the ‘enlightenment’ function and emphasizes the importance of internationalization for social development. Thus, around these two functions, it builds dominant narratives about the purposefulness of internationalization and the myth functioning in HE policy. However, the intentionality of this process differs from country to country, and cross-country comparative studies show that internationalization strategies are not universal, especially in the context of European integration and debates on globalization (Bedenlier et al., 2018). Therefore, attempts to analyse and answer the question about the reasons and goals of internationalization must take into account the study of local conditions and motives, including their temporal contingency. For some countries, ‘translating’ policies and adopting foreign standards means simply an almost thoughtless imitation of solutions, without understanding their purpose or hidden agenda. These countries ignore the fact that rankings promote internationalization as an ‘obvious’ phenomenon and ‘strategic’ process in HE, naturalizing international education as one of the next goods for sale on the global market – especially in the anglophone world (Altbach, 2013, pp. 81–88; Egron-Polak et al., 2016, p. 11). In the countries where commercializing HE to attract foreign students plays a smaller role, as in the Nordic countries, we can see greater macrosystemic reflection on international education as a strategic need of economic and foreign policy. Their open economies and active foreign policy require linguistically qualified personnel equipped with intercultural communication skills. Premises of idealism and educationism dominate here and the issue of recruiting international students for profit from the sale of educational services to them is of marginal importance (Sin et al., 2019; Wiers-Jenssen, 2018). Nevertheless, as predicted by institutional theories, even in these countries public institutions operating in HE and research that face the challenge of international rankings can hardly ignore their hegemonic standards. Adjusting to rankings causes a situation where a common global order emerges and not joining it, i.e. not fitting the criteria of academic quality set up by evaluators, would be suicidal (Thoenig, 2012, p. 177).

Semiperipheral states and internationalization

In this article I use semiperiphery as a concept that is essential to cover the empty dichotomy existing in the core – periphery model of the world-systems theory. Core zones are constituted by those countries in which high-profit, high-technology and high-wage diversified production are concentrated, in contrast to those countries in which low-profit, low technology, low-wage and less diversified production are concentrated (Wallerstein, 1979, p. 97). Additionally, the countries in the semiperiphery partly ‘act as a peripheral zone for core countries and in part they act as a core country for some peripheral areas’ (Wallerstein, 1976, p. 463). Kees Terlouw proved that semiperipheral positionality may be characterized by development at different scales, periods and types of social space, with interwoven stretches of behaviour characteristic for peripheral and at other times for core countries (Terlouw, 2003). Semiperiphery is the most dynamic area of transit, interconnection and flow in the world system, determined and influenced by core processes in the same way that it is affected and intervened by peripheral processes (Ruvalcaba, 2020, p. 21).

Categorizing Nordic states as semiperipheral may seem controversial. Nowadays they can be categorized as at least ‘core-contenders’ (Mahutga & Smith, 2011), as they have at their disposal the economic, social and cultural capital that characterizes the core states (Terlouw, 2003, p. 72). This gives them certain political independence and a distinctive symbolic capital, that of a uniquely Nordic model of development (Pawłuszko et al., 2015; Witoszek & Midttun, 2018). Nevertheless, categorizing these qualities through the prism of world-system theory must take into account their relatively modest demographic and economic potential, the limited possibility they have of exerting global influence and, in particular, their way of absorbing foreign ideas and policy learning from abroad, all of which corroborate their semiperipheral positionality and self-identification (Jalava & Rainio-Niemi, 2018; Nygård et al., 2018). The Nordic academia and higher education narratives that espouse internationalization as a systemic goal send the signal that all the Nordic countries regard themselves and act as semiperipheral, albeit perhaps to a different degree (Sin et al., 2019; Nygård et al., 2018). Furthermore, the semiperipheral condition of Nordic academia is also corroborated when compared with the typical core-like and periphery-like features and processes in the academic world-system. When contrasted with the clear-cut categories neatly listed by Demeter (2019, p. 132), the Nordic countries are underrepresented rather than overrepresented on editorial boards of scholarly journals (Nishikawa-Pacher et al., 2022, pp. 7–10). They also follow international standards instead of establishing them and, for the most part, model and mimic accepted theories instead of determining them. Finally, they must master the global language rather than provide it.

The genesis of doxa, or how the myth was internalized in the Nordic countries

The internalization of the internationalization myth had a somewhat different trajectory in each of the countries under study. Jane Knight maintained that internationalization efforts in academic institutions in highly developed countries began in the 1980s (Knight, 1994, p. 7). However, in the Nordic countries at that time, despite the presence of the functional myth of internationalization in the official narrative, HEIs were still relatively closed within their individual national educational systems. As a consequence, internationalization was not a priority of the sectoral higher education policy and was implemented at a varying pace from country to country. Only at the end of the 20th century, for reasons embedded in the competition narratives of each country, did the Nordic states see a chance for rapid development through the imitation and translation of solutions coming from the hegemonic centres of economy and knowledge (Gornitzka et al., 2008).

Background and drivers of HE internationalization in the Nordic countries

In the Nordic countries, internationalization as a rationalized myth built up gradually and over a longer period of time, which allowed for its almost complete internalization. Firstly, it was due to economic development after World War Two, achieved thanks to increasing exports to foreign markets, which required professionals who knew foreign socio-economic realities and languages. Secondly, the progression of internationalization was related to the training of human resources for administration and diplomacy. The idea was to use the reputation of non-aligned or neutral countries, i.e. one of the most known elements of respectively Swedish and Finnish symbolic capital, to effectively implement development projects in the so-called Third World and conduct conciliation activities in conflict zones around the world. Thirdly, due to their peripheral geographic location, small Nordic states have been able to consolidate their status as semiperipheral countries. This has been supported by looking for inspiration and the legitimization of modernization in administration and internal politics. It is a search that has usually taken place abroad, often in neighbouring countries (e.g. in Germany) and, for a number of years, more especially in the USA and Great Britain (Bungum et al., 2015; Nygård et al., 2018; Knudsen et al., 2003, p. 52;).

Over the last four decades, a specifically Nordic internationalization path has evolved, domesticating global trends in semiperipheral conditions in relation to the dominant so- called ‘empires of knowledge’, represented by USA, Great Britain, France, Germany and ever more often China (Hou & Debin, 2020; Wojciuk, 2018). It has consisted, inter alia, in promoting social development for which both education and the knowledge-based economy are strategic tools in relations with foreign countries. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, systemic actions and regulations were introduced to join the complicated reality of the world system by means of so-called globalization strategies (Musiał, 2013, pp.59–72). These activities are aimed not at simple and thoughtless emulation of behaviours from other socio-economic systems, but represent a more general strategy of modernizing public policies, including the HE and scientific sectors, with regard to macroeconomic and foreign policy. In so doing, they subscribe to the pervading narrative of world society that provide rational bases for assuming the universality of human actions around the world with the provision of common global frameworks and rules governing that action (Drori et al., 2006, pp. 25–27).

Such behaviour is typical of the strategies of small states which – like the Nordic ones – operate in the international arena with the use of all of their cognitive power resources and thus have a chance to reduce dependence on the hegemonic centres of the world economy and knowledge empires (Magnusdóttir, 2005). The internationalization policy of HE and science is a way to activate these resources. In addition to improving the quality of academic education and research, it also makes it possible to raise the rank and prestige of countries, thanks to the use of science diplomacy interwoven with national branding strategies (Sataøen, 2015). The simultaneous achievement of these goals is manifested in the public discourse dominated by the belief that it is necessary to use all resources in order to become competition states (Cerny, 1997; Pedersen, 2011; Rasmussen, 2020; Vukov, 2016). As Anna Wojciuk notes, a competition state works to best equip citizens with competences and skills that enable them to fare better in the labour market, and education has become one of the basic tools to achieve this goal (Wojciuk, 2018, p. 98).

By increasing cognitive resources over the years with good academic education, the Nordic states have made internationalization the modus operandi of a knowledge-based society (Kohvakka et al., 2019; Moisio & Leppänen, 2007; Nokkala, 2008; SOU, 2018; Åkerlund, 2020). This policy has been implemented thanks to the opening of the university to non-native employees and students, which in debates about the future of HE is clearly equated with quality enhancement (Ole & Kringelbach, 2009, pp. 99–103). Such openness sometimes conflicts with an active regional development policy involving HEIs in the peripheral regions, as in Norway (Jon P. Knudsen et al., 2019:71, 92, 156, 228). However, in this case, the internationalization doxa silences critical voices, and the practice of open recruitment contributes to the change in the functioning of smaller universities thanks to non-native research and teaching personnel from the middle and upper ranks of world science (Kristensen & Erik Karlsen, 2018, p. 27). In Norway the recently established Directorate for Higher Education and Skills¹ sets standards and guidelines to promote the internationalization of study content and programs, as well as the recruitment and mobility of students and lecturers as an obvious and embedded part of HE strategy. Similar guidelines and strategies strengthening internationalization have been promoted by the Swedish Higher Education Authority (Universitetskanslersämbetet) and the Finnish National Agency for Education (Opetushallitus). The main goal – following in the footsteps of the empires of knowledge – is to provide intercultural competences to easily employable citizens of the world who can cope with the globalized market (Hammond & Keating, 2018).¹

The way to operationalize this goal is through continuing Englishization of research publications and educational content, most noticeable in the technical and medical sciences. This is a phenomenon typical of peripheral and semiperipheral states in relation to anglophone knowledge empires, even though it is the subject of criticism by researchers who warn that the norms, values, methods and views of the anglophone centre become dominant and push non-English-speaking academic communities more and more to the periphery (Altbach, 2013:1–6). In the Nordic countries, to differing degrees, Englishization has grown problematic. On the one hand, national research foundations with their international evaluation boards have made English the operational language of research application. On the other hand, economic incitements to assure publications that are highly cited have enforced an almost universal use of English, regardless of the specificities of each discipline (Salö, 2017:78–82). Furthermore, in the Nordic countries a schizophrenic language policy in HE has often been observed, officially placing emphasis on teaching in national languages, while promoting and strategically supporting the use of English in publications and academic teaching. Criticism has been raised, for instance, in Denmark, against ‘domain loss’ because teaching in English stops students and instructors using Danish in science, while the national language is in danger of losing its status. The domain loss debate was welcomed and politically operationalized by the political far-right and populists (Wright, 2022, pp. 103–4), which in effect triggered a debate on Englishization both as an opportunity and a threat (Dimova et al., 2021,pp. 46–47; Kuteeva et al., 2020). Despite criticism, publishing in English continues in the name of improving the position of universities in world rankings, thus giving these countries an increased competitive advantage (Hultgren, 2014; Sørensen et al., 2019).

There were two main reasons behind initial decisions to internationalize in the Nordic countries in the 1970s. Firstly, more students began to use the right to freedom of movement and settlement within the Nordic area, and secondly, economic immigrants and refugees from areas of conflict across the world began to flow there in greater numbers. As a result of this, intercultural communication courses were developed to fulfil the endogenous needs of the welfare state, before becoming incorporated into academic practice for the internationalization of education which occurred at various speeds in different Nordic countries. In Sweden, for example, intercultural education and language learning were gradually introduced into the higher education system in order to cope with the cultural and linguistic diversity of its population. In 1982 immigrants and children of immigrants constituted 1,25 million out of Sweden’s 8,5 million population (Burn & Opper, 1982, p. 51). The need to deal with growing ethnic diversity in what, up to that point, had been of a rather homogeneous society, was conducive to the creation of new educational programs.

Sweden was indeed the Nordic pioneer in this area as the country was traditionally very open to provide help and support to so-called Third World countries. This development aid engagement made Sweden collaborate closely with the UN, while internationalization of its national university programs became a priority. This was after the proposal by UN Secretary General U Thant in 1969 to create a United Nations University as well as discussions within the Council of Europe in 1971 (Weissmann, 1974, p. 69). Since 1972 the legal framework for internationalization in Sweden has been provided by the Internationalization Committee appointed by the government. Unlike most Swedish commissions that are used for initial policy formulation to provide advice on specific policy problems (Dahlström et al., 2021), the Internationalization Committee was not a parliamentary commission but functioned within the framework of the central authority for higher education. The Committee’s recommendations were never officially legislated by the parliament but they were issued as guidelines by the National Board of Swedish Universities and Colleges (Burn & Opper, 1982:49–50). The conclusions of the Committee’s work clearly stated the need to support the expansion of exports of Swedish industry, which required qualified personnel to operate in the international environment and foreign markets. The intensification of Swedish exports and the willingness to fill management positions in companies expanding abroad with their own specialists has led to an official articulation of the need for education ensuring international competences (Nilsson, 2003:27–28).

The Internationalization Committee also proposed changes, largely motivated by the vision of Sweden as a leader in development aid. It was proposed, therefore, that students should be prepared to see the priorities of other cultures from the point of view of these cultures. In addition, despite their socialization in Western culture, Swedish students should also learn to more critically analyse their own values and habits and contextualize the local problems of other countries and cultures. The Committee emphasized the importance of intercultural communication and recommended more hours of foreign language learning (Kälvemark & van der Wende, 1997, p. 174). In addition, the aim of internationalization was to enable comparisons to be made between Sweden and other countries and thereby increase the competitiveness of Swedish higher education (SOU, 2018, pp. 63–64).

These recommendations defined Nordic HE internationalization from the early 1970s onwards. It included two types of activities: (1) exchange of students with other countries, and (2) the introduction of internationally oriented elements into the curricula (Weissmann, 1974, p. 67). Although the first set of activities was difficult to realize on a large scale due to economic reasons, changing the curricula was less demanding and fitted well with the overall ambitions of the Nordic governments to promote internationalism, peaceful coexistence and cooperation with other countries around the globe.

Similar arguments and motives underpinned Norwegian activities from this period, although the implementation of the strategy took place a little later and was framed as conducive to improving the quality of HE on offer. Depending on the size and location of the university, the reasons for internationalization were more varied than in Sweden (Frølich et al., 2008). Remaining outside the EEC structures, Norway emphasized the goal of improving the quality of universities by contrasting them with their counterparts abroad. Therefore, from the 1970s onwards, legislative initiatives and documents on sectoral policy have placed greater emphasis on the internationalization of didactics and the learning environment, and emphasized the importance of student and staff mobility (Åse Gornitzka et al., 2008, p. 151). However, the real change came in 1994 when Norway implemented a large part of the acquis communautaire in preparation for EEC membership (which did not finally happen). This added a layer of administrative solutions that also covered higher education and science. Since then, HE internationalization in this country has meant, first and foremost, its Europeanization (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2020; Åse Gornitzka et al., 2008, pp. 55–64), although – paradoxically - one of the most popular destinations for Norwegian students is Australia.

In Finland, until the mid-1980s, only intergovernmental agreements for cultural cooperation existed, and cooperation and mobility were mostly informal, based on individual contacts between professors and academics in other countries. There was a clear change in the second half of the 1980s, based on the Luxembourg declaration signed in 1984 between EEC and EFTA, which included, inter alia, a note on the intensification of scientific cooperation. The full accession of Finland to EFTA in 1986 made it possible to take the first steps in the COMETT and ERASMUS programs. Two goals of the internationalization of higher education were then clearly articulated. The first goal was to respond to the needs of the economy by educating graduates with a European system of values and providing them with competitive skills, the second goal was to improve knowledge of other cultures and understanding of foreign languages in order to promote peaceful coexistence and combat racism and prejudice (Ollikainen, 1997, pp. 74–75; Saarinen, 2012). Formulated for the first time in 1987, the strategy of internationalization (Ministry of Education, 1987) combined these goals inextricably with economic and cultural development, which was in line with the tradition of the national Bildung obligatorily implemented in Finland by academic institutions (Jalava, 2012; Nokkala, 2007).

Up until the 1990s, the Danish experience with internationalization epitomized the middle ground between Swedish progressiveness and the Finnish practice of catching up to fit the policy implementation imperative. Denmark was the first Nordic country to join the EEC in 1973, which gave it access to European mobility and exchange programmes at a very early stage. The Danish authorities were also very active in international institutions, like the OECD and the Bologna Process, in formulating goals for the global knowledge economy. Since the year 2000, development contracts between the ministry responsible for HE and universities have been an element in the governance of the HE sector, with internationalization being one of the binding goals linked to resource allocations (Pinheiro et al., 2019, pp. 73–74). After the 2003 Act on Universities, the universities became self-governing institutions, therefore, the Danish government could hardly demand that they should internationalize. What it did, however, was to encourage university leaders to present their institutions in new global or regional contexts. Danish university researchers and the knowledge industry established their presence and worked collaboratively in Innovation Centres in Shanghai, Silicon Valley, Munich, New Delhi, São Paulo, Seoul and Tel Aviv. Apart from an increasing use of the English language in Danish universities at home, in these centres Danish master’s programmes were offered in English. Furthermore, through the opening of Danish PhD and Research Council funding to international researchers, there was a plan to attract the best international staff and students to Denmark (Wright, 2022, pp. 101–3). However, due to internal tensions in Danish politics, the latest trend in Danish HE is to de-internationalize by cutting English-language education and thereby limit the presence of non-Nordic students in Denmark (Wright, 2022, pp. 103–5).

The gradual introduction of exchange programs at European level developed in parallel with efforts to transnationalise education and higher education in the Nordic area under the NORDPLUS program. The Nordic Program for the Mobility of Students and Teachers in Universities, initiated by the Nordic Council of Ministers in the autumn of 1988, was implemented under the operational plan for cultural cooperation between these countries. It was the first Nordic initiative to be considered as a testing ground for trans- nationalization. The program made use of the organizational abutments that already existed in the national higher education systems. It was therefore a very careful internationalization, in countries closer to home, using the administrative diversity of the Nordic countries while, at the same time, nurturing and promoting cultural proximity in accordance with the guidelines and postulates of the Nordic Council.

As stated in the NORDPLUS framework, its overall aim was to contribute to the creation of a densely woven Nordic learning community (Nordic Council of Ministers, 1992). The originators wanted to balance the introduction of educational exchange programs in the EEC countries, which among the Nordic countries at that time included only Denmark. The idea was to provide students and staff from universities in Norden with the same international experience as European mobility programs. Within a few years, the objective of the structural preparation of universities for future participation in the programs of the European Community was successfully achieved, by formalizing the activities of international offices at universities and testing the efficiency of the implemented intra-Nordic mobility procedures (Nordic Council of Ministers, 1992, pp. 25–54).

Translating international trends into local practices and strengthening doxa

After the experiences of the 1980s, in the next decade, the highly developed countries of the world turned their focus away from the effects of internationalization as a process. As different universities had, to varying degrees, managed to achieve the intended internationalization parameters, the focus was on internalizing the belief in organizations about the necessity and inevitability of integrating the international and intercultural dimension in teaching, research and other service activities of a given academic institution (Knight, 1994, p. 7). Therefore, recommendations and procedures were introduced, and the existing fashion for HE internationalization was supported by pragmatic and symbolic arguments that presented this process as innovative, i.e. implicitly improving the hitherto existing structures and paradigms (Czarniawska, 2014, p. 35).

The fall of communism and the end of the Cold War accelerated the need to adapt to new challenges in all the Nordic countries. In Finland, in particular, the collapse of the USSR sparked an economic crisis and accelerated the reform of the entire public sphere. All the Nordic countries were also affected by the identity crisis that forced them to make an accurate inventory of their material and human resources. This resulted in the popularization of the policy of active involvement in, and openness to, the international environment as a remedy for the emerging challenges in almost all areas (Musiał, 2009). The future and the organization of economic life was seen in a rapid accession to the mainstream of European integration. Under the conditions of globalization, internationalization was reduced to an inevitability, while in the management of public policy ideas and paradigms were increasingly and more willingly borrowed from the neoliberal narratives circulating in the more influential western centres of power.

The adopted strategy implied that the small Nordic economies supporting liberalism in international trade after World War Two, were now even more open to ride the wave of economic growth by flexible adaption to global trends or even by anticipating them (Musiał, 2013, pp. 59–62; Steinbock, 2010:40–41). The strategy of joining the mainstream in a globalizing world using the main resources at hand, i.e. a well-educated workforce, meant that after 1989 actions supporting the internationalization of public policy became an obvious formula both in international politics, as well as internal policy and the individual sectoral policies of the Nordic countries.

Thus, internationalization has become an institutionalized structure of thought (Warren et al., 1974), perceived as attractive and necessary in the given socio- temporal setting and, with time, internalized as the mode of generation of practices for administrative activities in public policy. In this situation, it was logical to better operationalize the phenomenon itself, which in the case of HE extended its universalizing definition at the beginning of the 21st century, meaning ‘the process of integrating the international, intercultural and global dimensions into the purpose, functions and implementation of post-secondary education’ (Knight, 2004, p. 11). However, for this integration to take place, it was necessary to build awareness of the inevitability of the phenomenon and its purposefulness, i.e. to achieve a permanent disposition to accept the teleological dimension of internationalization among all HE stakeholders.

A powerful stimulus to see the importance of the international dimension of HE, and one of the effective ways of its habitualization in the public discourse has been the reference to university rankings. As demonstrated convincingly by Jelena Brankovic, Leopold Ringel and Tobias Werron, the ‘gospel’ legitimizing university rankings is spread by international organizations, such as, for instance, International Rankings Expert Group Observatory. In the narratives of this organization rankings are inevitable, they reflect reality and are, therefore, needed. As a result, both global and national rankings are portrayed as instruments for elevating the quality of institutions (Brankovic et al., 2022).

Competing in international rankings fits well with the narrative of a competitive state which, by using its accumulated cognitive resources, can gain an advantageous position in the global knowledge-based world. The universality of this trend was noticed by Ellen Hazelkorn, who in her writing about the ‘geopolitics of rankings’, also warned that the selection of specific criteria allows not so much the creation of an image of world HE and the best universities, but to strengthen the position of elite anglophone universities and naturalize the hegemony of the English language (Hazelkorn, 2017 ,pp. 1–4).

In the last two decades, such classifications as the Times Higher Education world university ranking or the Academic ranking of world universities, known as the Shanghai list, have become a reason to select and promote flagship universities in the Nordic area. The goal is to meet international standards in the field of research as well as the education on offer and ensure high-quality administration (Nybølet, 2016). The rankings did not radically change the identity of Nordic universities, which already had a fairly well-defined research profile, but justified the actions of decision-makers to better coordinate internationalization strategies in order to maintain or improve their position in relation to foreign competition (Elken et al., 2016). This was a new trend as the Nordic academic market is not a typical market for paying consumers and fees in most cases are not even charged to non-EU students. Therefore, HE is not treated as a commodity of international (non-tariff) trade, which is typical for many countries (Knight, 2008, p. 25), but the more important premises of internationalization are to ensure the quality of what is on offer academically, institutional development and the strengthening of the economic and political position of the state. By addressing the quality issue as a driver for the internationalization of education, the Nordic states have subscribed to more universal trends leading to the international convergence of quality practices (Blanco-Ramírez & Berger, 2014) and adherence to quality assurance measures for crossborder HE as stipulated by OECD (OECD, 2005).

From the beginning of the 21st century, the method of habitualization of administrative activities based on these premises in academic institutions is a so-called ‘reflexive internationalization’. This reflexivity (or rather reflectivity) means that in addition to the intended actions for ‘global internationalization’ adherents should also conduct continuous analyses of processes, structures and interrelationships, and subject them to critical analysis and reflection with regard to the consequences of these actions in the domestic arena (De Wit et al., 2015, p. 283; Henze, 2014, p. 187;). Thus, the idea of reflexive internationalization entered into a dialogue with the increasingly popular postulates of the competition state, for which the globalizing international environment is a challenge, but also an opportunity; as long as it is possible to influence the rules of the game or, at least to recognize and use them to realize one’s own goals.

The result of the dialogue between proponents of the reflexive and global orientation was the desire to operationalize a so-called ‘comprehensive internationalization’ (Hudzik, 2014, pp. 7–25). The idea was to infuse all units and activities of a given university, but also its administrative environment in the macrosystemic sense, with the idea and ethos of activities for internationalization. In the most recent Swedish strategy for the internationalization of HE (Regeringskansliet, 2018) it translates into an imperative concerning the mainstream of administration and management of a given university or institute, and not only a possible policy implemented by a designated international office. Not only campus life, but also all internal and external frameworks with reference to business, partnerships and relationships are intended to exude an internationalized institutional identity. The Swedish strategy also assumes that the ministry and other departments of the government administration, which is directly responsible for the functioning of universities, will be involved in its implementation in such a way as to support this idea at every level and in every dimension (SOU, 2018, p. 69).

In the case of Swedish institutions, STINT, the Swedish Foundation for the Internationalization of Cooperation in Research and Higher Education, is certainly of great importance for the promotion of internationalization. Established by parliamentary decree in 1994, the organization aims to improve the quality and competence of Swedish HE through international cooperation. It supports, for example, the organization of so-called Excellence seminars, i.e. foreign lectures by Swedish scientists, who thus not only become research ambassadors of their institutions and their country as a part of science diplomacy, for example in Brazil or Russia, but also act as an advertisement for universities to attract foreign students to Sweden (Pohl et al., 2015). As stated in an impact analysis of STINT activities in the period 1994–2015, the foundation accepted and strengthened the development of higher education and research internationalization as predominantly consisting of individual researchers’ mobility becoming a central ingredient in the mission of the higher education institutions. Since 2011, STINT has become more involved on the policy level, attempting to influence public opinion and thereby contributing to the establishment of HE and research internationalization norms in Sweden (Pohl, 2017, pp. 5–77 and 98–99).

Undoubtedly, the key to the implementation of universal internationalization in Sweden is the consistent implementation of the 2018 strategy, which aims, inter alia, at increasing the number of foreign students. According to the strategy document, they only account for 7 percent of all graduates of masters and doctoral programs. The implementation of the strategy is also to include management of HEIs, increasing the attractiveness of Sweden for international students, developing intercultural competences and the ability to understand the international environment. In addition, university staff, including PhD students, are expected to gain solid international experience and gain access to international research networks. The strategy creates favourable conditions for the increase in the number of foreign partners and the improvement of the quality of these relations. Universities are to have the appropriate means to participate in global development and meet global social challenges. They will also receive tailored support in implementing the strategy from various government offices and agencies and a system for the monitoring and evaluation of internationalization is to be established (Regeringskansliet, 2018; SOU, 2018).

The example of Sweden discussed in detail here, but also the case studies from Finland mentioned below, show that the idea of universal internationalization has become the modus operandi of many universities (Holm-Nielsen, 2018; Lindqvist et al., 2018:84–85). These activities are not only left to the centrally located administrative unit, i.e. the international office, but are introduced as standard in all research and teaching units. For example, in some universities in Finland, international offices have been closed, and their staff have been delegated to other university-wide units dealing with recruiting students, recruiting new employees and developing their offer of full studies in English. The University of Helsinki used financial incentives in the form of internal grants for internationalization, supplementing them with long-term targeted funding resulting from a new funding algorithm for HEIs (Musiał, 2015). The attitudes of employees were also influenced by issues of prestige, such as the strategic decisions of the authorities and the declaration of the Ministry of Education on efforts to maintain the university’s place in the top 100 of the Shanghai ranking (Elken et al., 2016, p. 789; Laitinen, 2015). The current Strategic Plan of the University of Helsinki for 2021–2030 puts it on the path of becoming ‘one of the leading universities in the world’ and an ‘internationally recognized stronghold of edification’ (University of Helsinki, 2021). The plan mentions the aspired international high position and impact within the scientific community that comes from being an attractive international partner and employer. These are neatly interwoven with the promotion of an international outlook among students to advance their understanding of the world and global responsibility.

The example of Finland illustrates very well the functioning of the internationalization doxa solidified by pragmatic adaptation to the environment of continuing European integration, international competition and the increasing role of rankings. Until the 1990s, it was widely believed that internationalization was the Achilles’ heel of Finnish academic education and research, even though, as early as the 1980s, the ERASMUS program provided Finnish students with the opportunity to participate in student exchanges with other European countries. However, its use was intensified only after Finland joined the EEC in 1995. To date, over 60,000 students from Finland have spent at least one semester of study abroad and over 80,000 students from other European countries have gone to Finland. Students from Finland are said to be reluctant to study abroad, but until 2010 the low number of researchers recruited from other countries to work at Finnish universities was a measure of the system’s backwardness in internationalization. This number has grown rapidly in the last decade and Finnish scientists have also started to participate more actively in EU-funded research projects, although it should be noted that there are disciplinary clusters that are more likely to internationalize: for example, technological disciplines, the health sciences or biotechnology (Lindqvist et al., 2018, p. 60).

The Danish experience with translating internationalization norms to local practices must be seen in the context of increasing focus on the national economic interest as a prerequisite for such adaptation. After 1989 student and staff exchanges have remained key indicators of internationalization especially within established exchange programmes and bilateral agreements. The development of a national strategy for internationalization has been on the political agenda due to the acceptance of norms resulting from the Bologna Process, charging tuition fees to foreign students and the development of Nordic cooperation in higher education (Maassen et al., 2004, pp. 3–38). Furthermore, the 2006 globalization strategy of Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government, with its references to Danish ‘world class universities’, implied a causal linkage between internationalized HE and the research sector, making the Danish state more competitive worldwide (Regeringen, 2006, pp. 62–72). Also current regulations in the Act on Universities repeat references to ‘the highest international level’ in given disciplinary domains as a naturalized benchmark for research, research based teaching and quality assurance (Forskningsministeriet, 2019).

Strategic expansion and possible directions of internationalization in the future

The above analysis of the habitualization of the rationalized myth of internationalization testifies to the pragmatism of the Nordic countries, oriented towards the dominant empires of knowledge. This action is typical for states that apply the strategy of anticipatory adaptation to global determinants of social development (Steinbock, 2010, pp. 40–41). Polish sociologists, (Krzysztofek & Szczepański, 2005, p. 281) wrote that anticipatory adaptation is not so much about ‘designing the desired trends’, but about preparation and actions, not reactive or forced, but aimed at surviving in a situation of uncertainty and with growing anticipation of chaos in the globalized world.

In this context, it is interesting to observe the latest trends and directions of activity of the Nordic states that prior to the war launched by Russia against Ukraine in 2022, gradually and strategically attempted to turn towards Russia and China, i.e. in directions as an alternative to the previously dominant western empires of knowledge. The cases of cooperation with the Russian Federation are intriguing because they took place after the year 2014, when sanctions imposed on Russia after the annexation of Crimea limited its cooperation with the European Union in many areas. The outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022 will most likely mean the continuation of this policy of limitation even though it might mean serious problems for universities in the High North.

International cooperation between HEIs in neighbouring countries is usually preferred as it can be fostered by easy mobility and contacts in areas other than HE. Finland and Russia have, therefore, frequently collaborated on different programmes in the past, attempting double degrees and mobility initiatives that fuelled internationalization. So far these actions have been resilient even to the permanent uncertainty caused by political events (Shenderova, 2018). In this regard an interesting case is also the initiative of Norwegian universities in the Arctic region that developed cooperation and exchange with universities in the Russian Federation (Sundet et al., 2017). Norway, which traditionally attaches great importance to development aid as part of its foreign policy, has made education one of the components of such aid, while at the same time providing Norwegian students with ‘internationalization at home’ by admitting students from Russia (Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2017; Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2017). The currently implemented strategy of increasing HE quality through interaction with foreign partners focuses on maintaining mobility and cooperation agreements. The 1,447 Russian students who studied in Norway in 2015 accounted for around a third of all international students, while in 2019 this number fell to 727 (DBH, 2020). The change in academic content and in collaboration structures that were to be infused with international content is discernible, but perhaps has not yet reached a critical mass (Wiers-Jenssen et al., 2017, p. 61).

Apart from the Russian Federation, which is important primarily for Norway and Finland, China has been attracting more attention from the Nordic countries for several decades. In 1995 the Nordic Center was established at Fudan University in Shanghai. Referred to as ‘a Nordic entry point to China’ it is jointly financed by contributions from nearly thirty universities from all the Nordic countries. Since its establishment, coordinated scientific and academic exchange has developed in many areas. This cooperation has resulted in the joint education of doctoral students, exchanges of academic teachers and the organization of dedicated courses and summer schools with the participation of students from China and the Nordic countries (Nordic Centre n, n.d.). Even though there have been concerns raised about the prospects of academic freedom and the impact this will have on academic collaborations with Chinese actors, the latest report evaluating the Joint China-Sweden Mobility Programme states plainly that this country is today the largest research partner of Swedish HEIs based on co-publications, predominantly in the natural, engineering, and medical sciences (Shih & Forsberg, 2021, pp. 3–4).

For Denmark, in particular, as Lyngdorf et al. (2019) has shown in an analysis of the strategies developed by the Danish Ministry of Education, China is currently the most important destination in the context of the range of activities for the exchange of employees and students. This translates into prioritizing ‘innovation centres’, such as the Chinese-Danish Education and Research Center for Master’s and PhD students, established on the basis of partnerships between all Danish universities and the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (SDC, 2020). Even the critical voices raised in the Danish press after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, accusing Danish scientists of being naive and supporting the Chinese military and security sector through research cooperation, do not seem to have changed this situation (Laugesen, 2020). After all, Danish HE internationalization strategies are primarily embedded in the logic of economic expansion into international markets, and only secondarily do they refer to an educational space where the ideals of interculturalism and internationalism can emerge (Lyngdorf et al., 2019, p. 264).

In lieu of conclusions – possible research agendas and lessons to draw from Nordic experiences

Over the course of several decades, internationalization has become a very important element in the operation of HEIs in the Nordic countries. The concept of the functional myth used in this article highlights the naturalized popularity of this phenomenon which has been rationalized to the point of becoming doxa – due to its symbolic value and association with the ‘natural’, positive and desirable development in the whole HE sector. In the discourse of organizational change, the inspiration for internationalization is often provided by patterns and norms existing at the transnational level, especially those drawn from the empires of knowledge or the rankings they generate. In the Nordic countries one can often observe imitation, but also domestication of these patterns. On this point, one can speculate that the skilful practice of anticipatory adaptation naturalizes internationalization making it the cause of at least some of the institutional changes.

Among the elements that distinguish the Nordic manner of operating from other semiperipheral states, this article paid attention to the habitualization of the concept of internationalization. It was successfully introduced first at the level of communication in the public sphere, and then symbolically intertwined with the general narrative of progressive social development in an increasingly competitive world economy and society. With the help of external administrative instruments, legal solutions and financial incentives included in development contracts between universities and the ministries responsible for HE, internationalization has been naturalized as an obvious formula for the operation of universities and a tool for improving quality and changing the content of what HE institutions have to offer. Thus, institutional stakeholders have been socialized first by strategic bargaining and tactical concessions, then adherence and, finally, the habitualization of norms.

The current turmoil in the international environment and the situation related to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic or the escalation of war in Ukraine pose new challenges for HEIs in implementing their internationalization policy. The Nordic states will certainly not remain passive and, in line with their tradition, will approach the new situation pragmatically. An example of such pragmatism are the new study programs in partnership with universities in the Russian Federation (which have now been temporarily suspended) or the strategic refocusing of attention on cooperation with China and other major countries aspiring to become world centres of economy and science. Perhaps the Nordic countries in their current internationalization strategies anticipate the forthcoming transformation of the world-system’s geopolitical imaginary and do not want to rely solely on the epistemic hegemony of the Western core powers. It may be a strategic choice or just a recalibration of their semiperipheral status vis-à-vis the alternative empires of knowledge. After all, as convincingly argued by Manuela Boatcă in the case of Latin America and Eastern Europe, for semiperipheral areas to be able to generate new institutional forms capable of transforming both system structures and modes of production, a different cultural and epistemic logic needs to be devised to change the terms, not just the content of the interactions (Boatcă, 2006, pp. 325–26). What might look like an anti-systemic initiative to recalibrate coordinates towards the anticipated growth of Chinese or (until recently) Russian epistemic hegemony, may in fact be a strategic potential maximization of the competitiveness of Nordic states trying to align world-systemic changes to their semiperipheral position and needs.

The internationalization imperative as an opportunity for semiperipheral states to strengthen their position on the global stage has been a way of harmonizing the activities of Nordic states with those of the international arena for a long time. On such foundations they created a rationalized myth of internationalization – in the sense of the 1977 definition of John Meyer and Brian Rowan – which is an effective way of managing their universities in the global era. It requires periodic revision of strategies and anticipatory adaptation to new challenges, but perhaps this ability to anticipate global development is the most genuine Nordic lesson for other semiperipheral countries.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the participants of the seminar Reforms and Governance of Nordic Universities – Historical and Comparative Perspectives that took place at Hanaholmen, Helsinki, on 2-3 December 2021, for their practical and motivating comments on the first draft of this article. The final version owes much to two anonymous reviewers whose inquisitiveness and critical questions made the author pay greater attention to representativeness and the comparative character of the analysed national cases.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Established on 1 July 2021, under the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, following the merger of the Norwegian Agency for International Cooperation and Quality Enhancement in Higher Education (Diku), Skills Norway, and Universell, as well as parts of Unit and the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD). https://hkdir.no/norwegian-directorate-for-higher-education-and-skills