Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2019.17.8.061

University Mergers in Finland and Norway and Their Policy Implications  

Chae, Jae-Eun (Dept. of Public Policy and Management, Gachon University)
Byoun, Su Youn (College of Mano General Education, Busan University of Foreign Studies)
Publication Information
Journal of Digital Convergence / v.17, no.8, 2019 , pp. 61-69 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study analyzed the process of university mergers that took place in Finland and Norway in order to present policy implications for the Korean government considering university merger as an effective policy instrument for restructuring of the Korean higher education system. Based on reviewing the previous literature and related documents, researchers conducted a comparative case study on the context, strategies, and outcomes of the implementation of university merger policies of the two countries. The results of analyses suggested that combination of government's clear direction-setting and enhanced autonomy of merging institutions was essential for successful mergers. Considerations on upgrading the structure of the whole higher education sector to meet new needs of the future society were also suggested.
Keywords
university merger; restructuring; higher education; Finland; Norway;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 OECD. (2017). Collaboration, Alliance, and Merger among Higher Education Institutions. Paris : OECD.
2 K. S. An & E. Y. Lee. (2015). A Study on the University Restructuring Policy in Convergence Society: from the Perspective of Habermas's Communicative Action. The Journal of Politics of Education, 13(8), 439-447.
3 J. E. Chae. (2013). The Impact of Mergers on the Experiences of Students. Korean Journal of Comparative Education, 23(5), 53-75.
4 H. S. Lim. (2009). The Educational Realities of National Universities and Private University and Their Reform Agenda. Journal of Korean Social Trends and Perspectives, 10, 76-101.
5 S. Y. Byoun & J. E. Chae. (2018). An Analysis of university mergers through faculty experiences: Case studies of mergers between a two-year college and an university. The Korea Educational Review, 24(2), 167-194.
6 G. R. Kim & I. Y. Lee. (2016). Analysis of the Characteristics of Conflict Network Structure in Merger Process of Small Schools and National Universities. The Journal of Politics of Education, 23(3), 49-73.
7 P. Vartiainen. (2017). Campus-based tensions in the structural development of a newly merged university: the case of the University of Eastern Finland. Tertiary Education and Management, 23(1), 53-68.   DOI
8 Ministry of Education. (2018). Results of the Evaluation of University Education Capacities. Seoul.
9 J. S. Kim. (2018). A Critical Review of the University Restructuring Evaluation. Journal of Institute for Social Sciences, 29(2), 227-248.
10 Ministry of Education & Culture. (2018). Finnish Education in an nutshell. https://www.oph.fi/download/146428_Finnish_Education_in_a_Nutshell.pdf, August 7, Helsinki.
11 S. Reichert & C. Tauch. (2003). Trends 2003: progress towards the European Higher Education Area. Bologna four years after: steps toward sustainable reform of higher education in Europe. Brussels : Report prepared for the European University Association.
12 T. Nokkala, J. Välimaa & D. Westerheijden. (2016). Finland - University Mergers and Institutional Profiling. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg.
13 Tampere University and Tampere University of Applied Sciences homepage. (2019). https://www.tuni.fi/en. June 30.
14 Aalto University webstie. (2019). https://www.aalto.fi/. May 26.
15 J. Kerola. (2019). This is the case for the new university community in Tampere. https://www.aamulehti.fi/a/200606842.
16 T. Aarrevaara, I. Dobson & C. Elander. (2009). Brave new world. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 1-18.
17 S. Kyvik. (2002). The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. Higher Education, 44(1), 53-72.   DOI
18 J. Ursin. (2017). Transforming Finnish higher education: Institutional mergers and conflicting academic identities. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 35(2), 307-316.   DOI
19 Government Norway website. (2019). https://www.regjeringen.no.
20 S. Kyvik. (2009). The Dynamics of Change in the Organisational Field of Higher Education: Expansion and Contraction. Netherlands : Springer.
21 S. Kyvik & B. Stensaker. (2016). Mergers in Norwegian higher education. Mergers in Higher Education, 46, 29-42.   DOI
22 Ministry of Education & Research. (2016). Quality Culture in Higher Education. Oslo.
23 J. D. Norgård & O. J. Skodvin. (2002). The importance of geography and culture in mergers: A Norwegian institutional case study. Higher Education, 44(1), 73-90.   DOI
24 P. Arbo & T. Bull. (2016). Mergers in the North: The making of the Arctic University of Norway. Mergers in Higher Education, 46, 107-127.   DOI
25 University World News. (2018). Will Nordic model of higher education survive reforms?. https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180406162120139. April 6.
26 Y. H. Chun. (2014). Uncertainty of Autonomy Effects in Agentification: the Case of Seoul National University. Korean Journal of Publi Administration, 52(4), 79-109.
27 J. W. Yi, D. S. Han & D. H. Yun. (2016). Crisis at Universities and the Practical Issues of Physical Education and Sports Related Departments. The Journal of Politics of Education, 14(1), 427-436.