This article was downloaded by: [University of Regina]On: 18 April 2013, At: 14:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Transplanting tenure and the(re)construction of academic freedomsAnne Herbert a & Janne Tienari aa School of Economics, Aalto University, Helsinki, FinlandVersion of record first published: 25 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Anne Herbert & Janne Tienari (2013): Transplanting tenure and the(re)construction of academic freedoms, Studies in Higher Education, 38:2, 157-173

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.569707

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Transplanting tenure and the (re)construction of academicfreedoms

Anne Herbert∗ and Janne Tienari

School of Economics, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

In a radical change to modes of academic employment in Finland, a newly mergeduniversity is introducing a tenure track system based on examples from the UnitedStates. Analyzing texts produced by university strategists, on the one hand, andinterviews with staff affected by the system, on the other, we explore hownotions of academic freedom are (re)constructed when tenure is transplanted intoa new context. Our exploratory study builds on Marginson’s work, and seeks tounderstand, first, how tenure becomes a tool for realizing senior managementstrategic intent in universities and, second, how it affects academics’understandings of freedoms. It is argued that tenure and its effects need to beconsidered vis-a-vis the local context where it is adopted and adapted.

Keywords: tenure; academic employment; academic freedom; Finland

Introduction

Academic freedom is a concept that is closely associated with universities andacademic life. It connotes a freedom different from other professional occupations(Baruch and Hall 2004). Recent research on freedom in academia focuses, forexample, on the distinctions and relations between the autonomy of academic insti-tutions and individual academics (Aarrevaara 2010; du Toit 2007; Estermann andNokkola 2009), on the legislative environment for protecting academic freedom (Ivie2005; Karran 2007), and on free expression in emerging online environments(O’Neil 2008). The relationship between academic freedom and tenure of academicemployment is a consistent thread in the discussion, which suggests that academicfreedom can in practice mean different things to different actors in different circum-stances. However, only limited in-depth empirical analysis of this variety is available(Karran 2007).

Tenure track systems that became common in US universities last century wereestablished in an academic labour market with a multitude of job seekers and a largenumber of potential employers. Along with US models of higher education, the con-cepts and values underpinning the US idea of academic tenure were exported acrossthe world (Crainer and Dearlove 1999; Engwall 2007). However, the US model of aca-demic employment as such was not widely adopted across Europe, where nationaldifferences in systems of higher education persisted (Cavalli and Moscati 2010).Academics based in European universities nevertheless learned about the American

ISSN 0307-5079 print/ISSN 1470-174X online

# 2013 Society for Research into Higher Educationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.569707

http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Corresponding author. At Ormond College, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australiasince March 2011. Email: trebrehenna@gmail.com

Studies in Higher EducationVol. 38, No. 2, March 2013, 157–173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

tenure concept and its underpinning values of competition and meritocracy. Recently,some European governments and universities have been seeking ways to make aca-demic career paths more clear, the competition for academic jobs more open and thesalaries more attractive, as well as clarifying accountabilities for academics achievingspecific goals and delivering particular outputs. To these ends, in some contexts aUS-style tenure track system is being adopted; for example, in the Humboldt UniversityBerlin (Germany), in the University of Twente (The Netherlands), as well as in theKarolinska Institute and the Royal Institute of Technology (Sweden).

This article enters the discussion on the relationship between tenure systems andacademic freedoms with an empirical focus on a Finnish example of introducing atenure track system. Marginson’s (2008) work on individual academic freedoms isused as a theoretical frame to understand, first, how tenure becomes a tool for realizingsenior management strategic intent in the university and, second, how it affects aca-demics’ understandings of freedoms. Our findings show that when new governanceprinciples allow senior management strategists to determine the system of employmentof academics, the choice of a tenure track system does not necessarily defend individualacademic freedom to choose one’s own work goals and means. In the specific localcontext, tenure as a tool for university senior management will be adopted for particularpurposes. The affected academics’ views of management purpose and their changingfreedoms will be influenced by what that context has accustomed them to. In thecontext explored, there is a tendency to highlight collective as well as individualfreedom in academic work.

The article is structured as follows. A short overview of recent debates about tenureand academic freedom are provided next. We then present our empirical materials andanalysis. The current Finnish higher education reform is outlined as the setting for theintroduction of tenure tracks at Aalto University. Finally, we specify and illustrate themeanings given to academic freedom(s) in the materials, offer conclusions based on ourfindings, and suggest avenues for future research.

Tenure and academic freedom

Tenure of academic employment became popularized in the United States ‘as an instru-ment to guarantee the independence of faculty in their search for truth, to assure them ofdue process, to offer a degree of employment security as a partial compensation for therelatively low salaries . . . and to protect them from the caprice of the politically andfinancially motivated, and the narrowness and meanness of colleagues who holddifferent views’ (Bogue and Aper 2000, 171). Tenure implied long-term security ofemployment granted after proving oneself to one’s peers over a period of time, andthrough pre-defined evaluation processes. Tenure was also considered emblematic ofacademic freedom by providing job security and by operating as a mechanism toprotect academic control of scholarly work (DeGeorge 2003). Institutionalized tenurewas assumed to protect more than individual rights, because its existence affirmeddemocratic principles of academic participation in decision making (O’Neil 2008;Teirney and Lechuga 2010).

The tenure model of academic careers rests on the central value of academicfreedom. Freedom, despite being a central tenet of academic working life (Altbach2001; Tierney 2004), is an ambiguous concept as it is used in different ways in differentcircumstances (Henkel 2005). It may refer to individual freedoms protected by localinstitutional policy or legal frameworks (Ivie 2005) or to the autonomy and

158 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

independence of an academic institution (Estermann and Nokkola 2009). At theindividual level, the matter is often freedom from interference, but sometimes alsofreedom to engage in particular activities (Akerlind and Kayrooz 2003). The lattersupposes that the academic organization provides some sort of enabling opportunityor support for particular scholarly activities. From this perspective, the organizationmay decide what opportunities are provided for which activities. This leads to thequestion of the freedom of the organization to decide which aspects of academicwork are treated as questions of individual freedom (see also du Toit 2007).

In the US, tenure as a basis of academic employment is on the decline (Bowden2009; Finkelstein 2007; National Center for Educational Statistics 2009). Its valuehas been contested for some time (Chait 2002; McPherson and Shapiro 1999) in theface of financial constraints, perceived need for flexiblity in human resourcing, anddemands for new ways of keeping academics accountable (Finkelstein 2007). Some cri-ticize the lack of ongoing performance evaluation once tenure is achieved, while otherspoint out that tenure keeps academics in fixed and constricted places, normalized byprocesses such as peer review. Tenure hiring and promotion processes have beensaid to induce fear rather than freedom, normalizing domination and control by smallclosed groups (Williams 1999). Yet, those not on the tenure track and employed in aca-demic work ‘off track’ – that is with no promise of evaluation and potential promotionto tenured status – often remain second-class citizens of the academy. Not only do theyhave less opportunity for promotion and job security, they also have less access to par-ticipate in decision-making about a variety of academic matters (Finkelstein 2007).

While in the USA the sustainability of tenure has been debated, in Europe theemployment conditions of academics continue to be influenced by waves of newpublic management. As an ideology and practice of government, new public manage-ment embraces competition, economic efficiency and accountability, takes privatebusiness and markets as its benchmark for transforming public sector institutionssuch as universities, and operates through specific techniques of measurement andcontrol (Amaral, Meek, and Larsen 2003; Krejsler 2006). Academic freedom hasbeen argued to have deteriorated as a whole vis-a-vis increasing managerialism andmarket-driven pressures on the work done in universities (Tierney and Lechuga2010). Still, Marginson (2008) points to more complexity and calls for further in-depth inquiry about how new public management can afford some freedoms whilerestraining others.

Drawing on work of Amartya Sen, Marginson (2008) suggests a model for a morefine-grained understanding of gains and losses of individual freedoms under new publicmanagement conditions in academic life. This model suggests some useful parametersfor considerations of academic freedom, which have thus far received little attention inthe debate. Distinctions are drawn between agency freedom, freedom as power,freedom as control, and freedom as the capacity for a radical-critical break. Agencyfreedom is that of an independent person with an identity and a will to act on her/his own behalf according to his/her notion of ‘good’. Notably, it is not always thesame as the will to maximize self-interest. For example, academic workers may exer-cise agency freedom when they choose poorly paid temporary jobs above more securepathways in order to be able to pursue the specific work they prefer. Freedom as poweris the capacity and power of the individual to select and determine the outcomes of theiractivities. Freedom as control is the ability to choose how given outcomes are achieved.Finally, freedom as the capacity for a radical-critical break is the availability of pos-sibilities to create previously unimagined ‘new’ knowledge. In the context of academic

Studies in Higher Education 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

workplaces increasingly affected by new public management, freedom as control maybe increased even when freedom as power is reduced, and agency freedom may beapplied by some who have little freedom as power.

More empirical attention is warranted to understand how academics comprehendtheir academic freedom(s) in changing conditions (Karran 2007; Marginson 2008).Introducing a new tenure track career system at a newly merged university is onesuch change. Different groups in the same organization can have dramatically differentperceptions and stories of the ‘same’ change (Brown and Humphreys 2003). Thisarticle explores how university strategists use their increased autonomy from statecontrol to choose the concept of tenure and to transplant it into a new local socio-cultural context to fulfil particular purposes. We also explore how middle-level aca-demics at the same university understand the concept of tenure in relation to academicfreedoms. In effect, the views of middle-level academics are contrasted with universitystrategists in order to shed light on the ways in which a tenure track system becomesadapted and contextualized.

Empirical materials and analysis

Aalto University is a new university created by merging three state-controlled univer-sities in Finland. Popularly considered as the ‘flagship project’ of the recent nationalreform of higher education (Ridell 2008; Kunelius, Noppari, and Reunanen 2009;Aula and Tienari 2011), Aalto University is now legally owned and operated by aprivate foundation. One of the ways in which Aalto University attempts to differentiateitself from other Finnish universities, and to build an attractive image internationally, isthe introduction of an academic tenure track system based on US examples: i.e. long-term employment security and guaranteed promotion in return for specific types ofwork performance. Aalto University was the first Finnish university to introducesuch a system, but others, such as the University of Helsinki, Lappeenranta Universityof Technology and Tampere University of Technology are following suit, each withtheir own version of a tenure track system.

With its dramatic career system change, Aalto University is an interesting site foranalyzing the (re)construction of conceptions of freedom in academic life. Proponentsof the Finnish university reform have stressed that its key aim is to provide universities’senior management teams with more autonomy from civil service governance and bud-geting practices. However, questions of academic freedom have not been high on theagenda of the Aalto University strategists and the media; rather, their attentions havefocused on how the university promotes innovativeness to develop the competitivenessof the Finnish economy and society in the global market (Kunelius, Noppari, andReunanen 2009; Ridell 2008). In contrast to the amount of public discussion regardingthe autonomy of universities to manage their resources (Aula and Tienari 2011), therelative lack of public discussion regarding the freedom of individual academics tocarry out their work is resounding.

To understand the rationale behind the decisions leading to the introduction of thetenure track system, we draw on various kinds of empirical materials. Texts producedby the merger strategists – the board and senior management of Aalto University –espouse the rationale and justifications for this radical break from past employmentsystems. This includes strategy and planning documents and policy papers issued in2007–2010. Two senior academic professors were interviewed, chosen as knownadvocates for tenure track system and who worked on the plans for its implementation.

160 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

We also interviewed the President of Aalto University about how she views the tenuretrack system as part of the ongoing merger implementation process.

To understand how middle-level academic staff relate to the introduction of thetenure track system, we carried out interviews across the schools of the new university.Middle-level academics were defined as those who had their doctorates, had beenworking in academia for some time, and were currently employed on three to fiveyear fixed-term contracts. These people had to face the prospect of the newly introducedtenure track system and questions about whether they would transfer to it. A total of 15middle-level academics were interviewed twice, in late 2009 and in May 2010, regard-ing their understandings of, and expectations for, the introduction of the tenure tracksystem. All the interviewees were employed by Aalto University in 2010, but withno guarantees that they would be put onto the tenure track system. These hour-longinterviews were all carried out in English, and transcribed verbatim by an outsideexpert.

The interviews with middle-level academics were semi-structured, with themes fordiscussion derived from earlier literature and tabled with the respondents. The themesin the first round were the current employment situation of the interviewee and howthey see the Aalto merger process overall, how they understand the official logic forthe introduction of tenure, and how they anticipate they may be affected or respond per-sonally to the introduction of the new employment system. The themes in the secondround were reviewing changes in the respondent’s work situation, their understandingsof the current stage of the process of introducing the tenure track system, and theiranticipation of future developments, especially with regard to their own work. Inneither round did the interviewer raise specific questions about academic freedom orautonomy, but these emerged in the discussions as the interviewees made sense oftheir experiences and expectations.

The analysis of the empirical materials comprised a number of interwoven steps.First, strategy and planning documents and policy papers were searched for traces ofjustifications and objectives for the introduction of the tenure track system at Aalto Uni-versity. Transcripts of interviews with merger strategists were read in a similar manner.We searched for notions of autonomy and academic freedoms in the strategists’accounts. Second, transcripts of the interviews with middle-level academic staff wereread to identify understandings of academic work and how the formation of AaltoUniversity impacted on those. We searched for explicit mentions of autonomy,freedom and self-determination or related concepts in the academics’ accounts, usedat any of the following levels: (1) the new university as a merged whole, (2) theprior-existing universities, now merged under the name Aalto University, but largelystill operating as coherent wholes as ‘schools’, (3) sub-units within the schools (depart-ments, disciplines or research groups), and (4) individual academics. Evidence ofimplicit understandings of freedom, autonomy or self-determination were alsosought, such as specific ways of talking about the content and form of one’s work.Overall, we searched for recurring ways in which academics make sense of, and givemeaning to, the introduction of the tenure track system, with particular reference tothe different forms of academic freedom identified by Marginson (2008).

We consider our empirical materials not as ‘pure data’ but as living social texts,recognizing the fluidity of meanings therein. The interview texts, specifically, wereconstructed by the researched with us, the researchers, as we initiated the interview situ-ations, and thereby were active in the production of the research subject (Alvesson andDeetz 2000; Herbert et al. 2003). Our interpretations are constructions of meanings

Studies in Higher Education 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

constituted in the interviews and in the strategists’ texts. Before specifying andillustrating our findings regarding understandings of how the tenure track system isconsidered to affect individual academic freedoms, we briefly outline the broadersetting in Finland for the radical break from the existing career system at AaltoUniversity.

The context for a new tenure track career system

Throughout the world higher education systems are being reformed, frequently withnewly developed accountability and audit systems introduced to monitor variousmetrics of university performance in the spirit of new public management (Amaral,Meek, and Larsen 2003; Krejsler 2006; Marginson 2008). Rationales are based onthe logic that universities should be more innovative and proactive in meeting businessneeds, have access to more diverse funding sources, and be more international. Toachieve this, it has been argued that universities need more focus, flexibility andrelease from the constraints of state control.

The thrust of reforms in Finnish higher education since the 1990s resemble those inmany other western countries (Aarrevaara, Dobson, and Elander 2009). Under the newUniversities Act, governance arrangements changed and Finnish universities becameindependent legal entities from 1 January 2010. Each university became the directemployer of its own faculty, and selection requirements for academic positionschanged. Earlier, in principle, there was freedom in academic work in the sense of‘unfettered scholarly inquiry, a scholar’s fundamental right of research, publication,and instruction free of institutional constraint’ (Ivie 2005, 53). Heads of disciplines,deans and university rectors were elected by their work communities for fixed termsof service, and officially many internal decisions were made through representativestructures. While there is evidence that not every academic felt totally ‘unfettered’(Merilainen 2001; Mantyla 2007), and that critical commentary on the currentreform runs the risk of academic nostalgia that (re)constructs the time before reformas something unambiguously desirable (Ylijoki 2009), the perceived value offreedom to choose over the content and form of one’s work was widely held inFinnish academia (Tomperi 2009).

Consequently, the Finnish debate about the new law for university reform has beensignificantly polarized. On the one hand, the reformist (or managerialist) view treatsuniversities as sources of national competitiveness and as potentially innovative part-ners for Finnish companies, which are increasingly international in their outlook(Kasanen and Sotamaa 2010). On the other, the critical (or traditionalist) view questionsthe top-down ethos of the reforms, and challenges the reformists with arguments thatstem from the meaningfulness of everyday work practices in universities (Rasanen2008; Tomperi 2009; Valimaa 2007).

The polarized discussion pertains to questions of autonomy and academic freedom.The reformists emphasize university-level financial and administrative autonomy, andconceptualize it as more leeway for university senior management to pursue focusedstrategies to make Finnish universities more competitive on a global market, and toattain world-class status in chosen scientific fields independent from state control(Kasanen and Sotamaa 2010; Aula and Tienari 2011). The critical view, in contrast,emphasizes academic freedom in its traditional Humboldtian sense (cf. Krejsler2006; Karran 2009). This view is grounded in the conviction that Finnish universitieshad already become more effective, and that they fared very well in international

162 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

comparisons of higher education, especially in the light of their limited resources(Valimaa 2007). Critics contest the conviction that remoulding administrative struc-tures can improve academic teaching and research, and challenge top-down proceduresdecided with no respect for the practical activities of academic work (Rasanen 2008).Others claim that the new Universities Act, by allowing the appointment of externalmembers to comprise the majority in university boards, undermines the fundamentalself-governance principle of universities (Tomperi 2009).

For decades prior to 2010, academic work in Finland was characterised by academicemployees being part of the civil service, increasingly on fixed-term contracts. Some ‘oldguard’ continue to have long-term employment security, but academic careers in Finlandare generally considered precarious (European University Institute 2009). Since the1990s, most new positions in Finnish universities have been temporary appointments,and new generations of academics – such as the middle-level academics interviewed –have been socialized into a world of back-to-back fixed-term contracts, often either in theform of backfilling and replacing others on temporary absences, or taking part in researchprojects, and a constant uncertainty concerning the future. In the Finnish system, evenmany professorships are fixed term. The current reform, and the Aalto University tenuretrack system, has sought to change the face of academic employment in Finland.

Aalto strategists’ world-class discourse

The matter of what exactly a tenure track system could be at Aalto University wasalready on the agenda in the discussions about the merger in 2007. The new universitywas designed to be ‘world-class’ and there was significant investment in benchmarkingwith other – mainly US – top universities. A commissioned consultancy reportidentified a tenure track system as a core process ensuring the quality of researchand teaching. The given rationale (English in original) was that a tenure track system:

. is essential in ensuring high quality of teaching and research at a university;

. provides a clearer development path with support from the school;

. ensures appropriate career security while ensuring goal oriented academic work;

. makes the recruitment and career path comparable to international standards; and

. increases attractiveness of the university in international recruiting. (internal document, earlyAalto University Tenure Track Model)

The intention was encapsulated in the phrases ‘up or out’ and ‘grow or go’ referring tocareers and employment of academic staff, but there was little discussion about the pro-posals. Initial piloting of the tenure track system was promulgated internally as ‘a keyinitiative in the common transformation story’ to provide a ‘quick win’, that wouldhelp ‘to energize the transformation’ and make it ‘visible in the day-to-day workingenvironment’. As a formal mechanism the tenure track system could be expected toshift mindset and behaviour. At that early planning point, the tenure track system wasintended to ‘define clear [academic career] development paths’ and put Aalto Universityin the lead of reforms regarding the terms of academic employment in Finnish univer-sities. However, the strategists were ambiguous about whether the tenure track systemwas primarily intended for incoming faculty. That begged the question about whatwould happen with existing faculty members, especially those on fixed-term contracts.

In Autumn 2008, a team was appointed to explicitly design a tenure tracksystem system by identifying best practices from leading universities in USA

Studies in Higher Education 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

(e.g. Stanford, MIT) and tailoring them to meet the Finnish context and Aalto Uni-versity needs. The team report in February 2009 reiterated the importance of intro-ducing the tenure track system, emphasizing the need for high quality candidatesand the management of human resources in the new university. The tenure tracksystem was going to be characterized by ‘1. Clear rules, 2. Compensation ofsuccess, and 3. Equity’. The Aalto University by-laws, which were agreed inOctober 2009, mentioned that ‘tenured professors’ make up the ProfessorsCouncil and are represented on the School level Academic Affairs committee.There was no other mention of the tenure track system, but it implicitly affirmedthe certainty of its introduction.

In November 2009, a published decision of the Aalto University President con-firmed that all ‘current professors with continuous appointment transfer to tenuretrack Full Professor level’ on 1 January 2010. The arrangements for everyone elsewere less clear, to be clarified in 2010, when ‘other parts of the tenure track system’would be introduced. The confirmation of the decision included a short documentshowing that the structure of tenure track system would include five stages, with poten-tial for entry at any one of those. A brief statement declared that to enter the first step acandidate must be ‘excellent at an international level’ in either research or teaching.There was also a table indicating workload at each stage. The criteria for evaluationat entry or for progression were not confirmed, but a suggested model was included.The model gave broad considerations in terms of research, teaching and service,stressed external evaluations of research (and artistic) products, and indicated that allassessments should be based on Aalto values – which were not clearly articulatedand officially agreed at that moment.

A key controversial issue which gradually emerged in 2009 was how the tenuretrack system would be funded, and how tenure-track positions (or ‘slots’) might be allo-cated to the various schools, units and disciplines. At the official opening ceremony inJanuary 2010, the University President announced the appointment of the first newtenure track professor. Visible developments since then were rather few. The AaltoUniversity strategy was published, and it presented the tenure track system as a ‘keyarea of development’:

The creation of the tenure track career system based on an international model is perhapsthe most notable single reform implemented. Tenure track offers young research talent aclear career path towards a permanent professorship. The University commits to guaranteeresearchers who have qualified as Professors sufficient resources and the community’ssupport for the long-term development of expertise. Other career systems for academicpersonnel safeguard long-term planning of education and research and the sufficient mobi-lity of researchers. (emphasis added)

In May 2010, information on the Aalto intranet announced 45 new professor-leveltenure track positions or ‘slots’ to be opened in 2010 (many were postponed until2011):

Opening the positions is based on the university’s strategic plans, on the results of the[institutional] research assessment exercise, on the departments’ plans and justificationsregarding research and teaching, and on discussions carried out between the President,Deans and department heads. Final decisions regarding the opening of tenure track pos-itions, and their allocation to departments, is made by the President of Aalto University.The positions for 2011 will be decided on in the Autumn of this year. (Authors’ note: thiswas, again, postponed)

164 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

At the time of writing (February 2011) it remains unclear what process will be used fortransferring any other currently-employed staff to tenure track positions or how manynew tenure track positions may be created overall.

In sum, the tone of the strategists’ talk on the tenure track system has been author-itative and steering. They have taken the role of direction-setting, and the direction ofAalto University clearly includes a new academic career system. ‘Freedom to be crea-tive and critical’ is noted in the Aalto University values statement, but so far it is notclear where this value is put into practice. On the contrary, there are indications of con-servative choices about the ‘top-tier’ journals considered worthy sites for tenure trackacademics to publish. Discussions of whom among the existing fixed-term academicsmay be transferred to tenure, and how the decisions are made, have proceeded behindclosed doors.

The introduction of the tenure track system has been slower than envisioned in2009. Even in the Aalto University board, there were different views on the extentand pace of its implementation. The predictable politicking period of every mergerprocess (Vaara 2003) was in full operation – here, with arguments between schoolsand disciplines about strategy and budget. Allocation of resources became a keyissue. Until recently, disciplines and departments decided many of the academicappointments, making recommendations to the Academic Board who rarely questionedor intervened in their freedom to choose. In the new university, this decision-making iscentralized to the senior management, ultimately, to the President and the Board.

Academics’ discourse of freedoms

The middle-level academics interviewed attempt to make sense of the introduction ofthe tenure track system and give it meaning vis-a-vis their everyday work. Like the stra-tegists, the academics refer often to US examples. In late autumn 2009, when the mate-rialization of the tenure track system in practice was unclear, four main interconnectedways of talking about academic work and freedoms were evident in our interviews. Theinterviewees were not asked directly about freedom, yet it became a clear element intheir talk. Different meanings related to freedom seemed to structure the ways inwhich academics understand the coming tenure track system. We call these (1)freedom to explore passions and discover unexpected directions, (2) freedom towork across disciplines, (3) freedom from rigid modes of operating, and (4) freedomfrom financial controls. Exploration and discovery were talked about mainly with indi-viduals in focus, while the rigidity of modes of operating and financial controls werementioned more when talking about levels of organizational operation.

By May 2010 the same interviewees were talking less explicitly about freedoms andmore about the personal adjustments they had made to the prospects of the tenure tracksystem. Individually, they were adjusting to the absence of developments consistentwith previously understood promises; and the announcement of only 45 new tenuretrack positions for 2010. That number would not even replace retiring academicstaff, so it had become clear that tenured staff were going to be an elite few at AaltoUniversity. Middle-level academics, many of whom had worked in universities forover five years were conscious, however, that the elite tenured staff would not be suffi-cient to carry on the teaching and research tasks in the various units of the university. Inthe light of this, a new expectation that recurrent fixed-term employment would con-tinue was manifest. The new tenure track system was an ambiguous thing thatallowed a variety of interpretations in the particular context of Aalto University and

Studies in Higher Education 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

Finnish academia. Table 1 provides an overview of the themes identified in the wayacademics talked about their prospects of freedom with regard to the tenure tracksystem. Each of the four themes are elaborated below.

Freedom to explore passions and discover unexpected directions

The desire for freedom to explore one’s own passions and to choose one’s goals in workto which one is intrinsically committed was consistent among the interviewees. Manyquestioned whether that would be possible in the proposed tenure track system. This issurprising given the stated Aalto University value of ‘freedom to be creative andcritical’. However, the interviewees understood the tenure track system as a highlycompetitive system, even ‘cruel’, because it was expected to provide opportunityonly to a select few in a one-way ‘tunnel’. The tenure system was perceived as prescrip-tive, leading to ‘a factory product’. Those interviewed did not see the tenure tracksystem supporting a desire to work in different projects, publish in different fora,and to move in and out of academic workplaces throughout one’s career. In this talk,academics did not want to be ‘caught’ in a tenure track, an ‘unappealling’, even a‘dangerous’, passage constrained by ‘restrictive performance measurements’.

The interviewees talked about doing inspiring and meaningful work; some about thewillingness to work for a smaller salary if one could only work on the topic of one’sinterest. They anticipated these possibilities diminishing with the prospect of tenure.Others, however, were able to hold on to the vision that ‘it is possible for new researchareas to emerge and get funded’ alongside the tenure track system, because ‘comparedto other countries in Finland there is so much research money from so many differentexternal sources’ that the possibility for individuals to follow their passions and inter-ests would remain. Those who were confident that they could win research fundingwere not convinced tenure would add value to their academic work. Many intervieweescompared their experiences in the United States with those in Finland. Those USexperiences enabled interviewees to imagine what a tenure track system might belike in Finland. There was some concern that ‘we are simply just taking things [fromUS] without really thinking “is this for us?”’

Table 1. Freedoms in Aalto middle-level academics’ talk.

Choosing goals Effecting outputs and means

Individual Freedom to explore passions anddiscover unexpected directions

Doing inspiring and meaningful workWorking on topics of one’s interestMoving in and out of academic

workplaces over one’s career

Freedom from university funding controlsFinding sources of funding outside Aalto

and remaining unaffected by universitypolicies

Being satisfied with non-permanentemployment and being part ofinteresting team projects

Collective Freedom to work across disciplinesContinuing to work with colleagues in

different unitsPublishing on multi-disciplinary topics

(connected to daily challenges inworkplaces)

Working to improve Finnish industry

Freedom from rigid modes of operatingHaving opportunities for stimulating

creative thinking and risk-taking, notgetting stuck in disciplinary silos

Being free to get up and exploreBeing adventurous

166 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

Freedom from University funding controls

Funding the tenure track system was a matter that the interviewees were aware contrib-uted to its slow implementation. Lack of funding and waiting for others to decide aboutthe funding was one of the constraints from which Aalto University was supposed to befree. However, the economic downturn since autumn 2008 dampened the prospects forthe initially expected number of tenure track positions. The story has become one offew positions and less money in Aalto University; so the availability and flexibilityof other sources of research money is emphasized by our interviewees with satisfaction.This includes financing from state-controlled intermediary organizations such as theAcademy of Finland and, with more emphasis on collaboration with companies,Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation.

Researchers with a record of productivity can still apply and receive their ‘own’research grants from external sources, so Aalto University administration could notcontrol all research after all. There were, nonetheless, wishes that less time would bespent on negotiating and applying for money. The new tenure track system arrange-ments are expected, for the selected few, to potentially provide freedom from applyingfor competitive sources of funding, but overall there was no end in sight to the burdensof lobbying and negotiating for the majority. ‘So it’s a waste of time to think about it,’as an interviewee put it. ‘I have a hard time to imagine that I could have my work inbetter format as I have it now’.

Freedom to work across disciplines

In all but the most theoretical fields, such as physics, dealing with multidisciplinary andinterdisciplinary work was seen as a dilemma for the tenure track system. Drawing onobservations that US tenure track models do not reward multidisciplinarity, middle-level academics could not see how this would be evaluated favourably in the proposedAalto University model. They were wary about the discrepancy between the AaltoUniversity vision of being innovative and valuing exploration of boundaries, openness,and creativity, on one hand, and the tenure track system as a conservative and constrain-ing instrument of human resources management, on the other. ‘The classic Americanmodel would keep you in your silo,’ one bemoaned. The tenure track system ‘meansI have to do lots of things that I’m not interested in. So, you decide where you wantto be . . . the tenure track could be seen as one of the constraints to freedom,’ as oneof our interviewees put it. There was no prospect of resolution of this tension as, atthe time of the interviews, there were no examples available to show how it mightbe handled.

Tenure evaluations were expected to rely heavily on publications in discipline-specific and highly-cited ‘top-tier’ journals, and that ‘limits quite a lot how muchyou can publish,’ or at least what publishing is counted for tenure considerations.‘You have to be in a specific field and you have to publish in that field’s mainjournal or journals.’ This prospect felt like a huge constraint on freedom to publishwhat and where one saw fit, especially to those in new research areas and thoseworking on multidisciplinary topics that are not easy to get published in well-established disciplinary academic journals. By May 2010, these same people weretalking about focusing on publishing more in well-established academic outlets for‘more sustainable outcomes,’ rather than writing articles for local trade and professionaljournals or conference proceedings.

Studies in Higher Education 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

A visible paradox troubling academics was the strategists’ emphasis on innovationand creating new research foci in cooperation with business partners, while the tenuretrack system appeared path dependent and academically conservative: ‘we have thishierarchical [disciplinary] silo which the tenure track builds, and then we have thesehorizontal values . . . that you should work with other [disciplines].’ Repeatedly,observations were made of US-based researchers needing to wait for more than adecade to achieve tenure and to finally be able to pursue their own projects on some-thing ‘adventurous’, or on ‘what really interests them.’

Freedom from rigid modes of operating

The ideal candidate for the tenure track was understood to be ‘young, single, inter-national and publish like crazy.’ The understanding was that youth will be preferredin the tenure track system because junior salaries cost less. Younger academics wereaware of this, too, adding that being single is important because of the new expectationsthat a desirable tenure candidate will be expected to have significant scholarly experi-ence abroad. The expectation that one has to gain work experience overseas to be eli-gible for tenure was considered unreasonable for many, especially those with families.This mobility has traditionally not been a requirement in Finland. Older intervieweesexpressed their concern that they were not free to get up and acquire such experiencedue to family and other obligations. As one interviewee said: ‘people should be free towork where they live, my home is here, my family is here [and I want to work here]’.

This is a tough call for an aging workforce, who have not been encouraged to workabroad until very recently. For many individuals this mode of operating is notachievable and not appealing. Many have adapted themselves to working on successiveshort fixed-term contracts, and developed confidence that they would be able to dointeresting research even if it was on the basis of consecutive fixed-term funding.While these same people would have preferred more job security, they did not seethe tenure track system as offering that security unless they were a very particularkind of researcher: ‘I’ve been thinking that I’m not really a proper applicant withinthat process . . . because it will be a rather tight, tough and overloaded place to be.I’ve been much more satisfied with having the kind of lower salaries and non-permanent employment and being part of really interesting team projects.’

The introduction of the tenure track system also raised expectations about a particu-lar kind of elitism, that those on the tenure track will be first-class citizens, with moreprestige and privileges. The Aalto University strategists’ plans suggested that thoseselected onto the track will receive various kinds of support for progression, but,since the growing emphasis on how few and select the tenure track positions will be,the question arises about what will happen to the rest of the academic employeesacross the various schools of the university.

While interviewees felt that the tenure track system could be constraining for theirown careers, they are also concerned for their disciplinary units. The tenure tracksystem system is expected to reinforce ‘hierarchical silos’ with elite researchers sup-ported by the system. It was suggested that this could lead to situations where ‘oneresearcher has 200 publications and then there’s nothing else.’ Again, the challengeof making horizontal links across disciplinary silos is expressed. Interviewees areenthusiastic about innovative work, but do not see the tenure track system as necessaryfor fostering innovation. Individuals considering these issues use ‘we’ when speaking:‘One of the main concerns we had was whether this would stimulate creative thinking

168 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

and new ways of research and also risk-taking,’ ‘if we have evaluation every three yearsthat could mean that people are concentrating on evaluation criteria and compliancewith the research evaluation system,’ and ‘what we have too little focus on is theinnovative spirit of research.’

There was concern about others deciding for one’s own discipline what sort ofevaluation criteria should be used. The expected requirement to publish in ‘top-tier’international journals did not always even fit disciplinary goals: ‘In Finland, we wantto work for improving our industry and so, there’s some kind of mismatch. Thesekinds of requirements will increase the level of uncertainty . . . perhaps some [col-leagues] will get fed up with it and just quit.’ Disciplinary differences are consideredso substantial across the different schools of Aalto University that it is crucial to beable to decide the performance criteria expected in one’s own area. ‘There should befreedom for the departments to select the system and select criteria that fit their activity.I think it’s certain that not one system fits all in this university.’

Conclusion

Our analysis of transplanting a tenure track system at the newly merged Aalto Univer-sity in Finland contributes to recent discussions on academic freedom in general, and itsrelations to tenure and changing university governance in particular. It answers toKarran’s (2007) call for in-depth empirical inquiry on the variety of meanings thatfreedom attains in academic employment. Our study shows how the introduction ofa tenure track system can be interpreted to afford and restrict freedoms in particularways, and highlights the importance of local context in the ways in which academicemployment systems are adopted and adapted. The new Universities Act in Finlandchanged the degree of autonomy of academic institutions without making any specificchanges to the status of individual academics; yet, we can observe that individualsperceive that their freedoms are altering.

Marginson’s (2008) conceptualization of academic freedoms helps to illuminatepatterns of change in perceptions of academic employment, with more nuanced insightsthan a simple dichotomy. While individual academics at Aalto University perceive thatthey have less power to determine the goals of their work efforts because the universitystrategists now intend to do that, there can still be considerable freedom to control howthose goals are achieved. The middle-level academics interviewed desire freedoms atboth individual and collective (unit) levels, and anticipate both becoming increasinglylimited. Some respondents appear to be inclined to use what Marginson (2008) calledagency freedom, by declining to participate in the tenure track system, envisaging thattheir insecure fixed-term positions continue to provide room for boundary-crossing andmeaningful project-based work.

Our analysis thus highlights both individual and collective levels in relation toMarginson’s (2008) model of agency freedom, freedom as power and freedom ascontrol. This is significant because freedom as the capacity for a radical-criticalbreak, for example, is a phenomenon that rarely manifests in an individual; rather,particular groups of scholars produce, and offer to international scholarly debates,‘new’ knowledge in a given field. Thus, groups in addition to individuals need to beable to exercise various freedoms.

In our study, it is apparent that the university senior management exercised andemphasized its new autonomy to introduce a tenure track system, based on USexamples, into a context where it signified a radical change to academic employment

Studies in Higher Education 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

traditions. The senior management expected the introduction of the tenure track systemto contribute to the achievement of their strategic goal for Aalto University to be recog-nized as a world-class university. Academics at the university whose careers will bedirectly affected by the tenure track system, in turn, told stories of elitism and crampingof creativity. Table 2 contrasts the views of strategists and middle-level academics ontransplanting tenure track system into Aalto University.

Middle-level academics’ stories about tenure track system at Aalto University arebuilt on values about freedoms, which resonate with Marginson’s (2008) framework.Their stories are about working hard and doing meaningful work in an increasingly rar-ified space for agency. The academics do not use words like ‘agency’ or ‘self-determining’, but these concepts are implicit in their talk, especially on the importanceof being free to explore passions and discover unexpected directions, and the freedomto work across disciplines. These correspond with the value of being free to choosepurpose and goals. It is evident to many of the middle-level academics that pursuingresearch across disciplinary boundaries may not advance their own careers, but theyhave other motives such as exploring new horizons. Their talk about freedom fromrigid modes of operating and freedom from control by financial constraints correspondsto being free to effect outputs and the means to achieve them.

Aalto University middle-level academics’ stories about tenure as a senior manage-ment strategic tool that may restrict their freedoms is, in the light of the particularcontext of Finnish universities and academia, not altogether surprising, although theoriginal idea of tenure in the US was built to protect the academic freedom of individ-uals from undue political pressures. The potential discrepancies and contradictionsbetween Aalto University senior management’s aspirations to become ‘world-class’and the middle-level academics’ perceptions that the tenure track system is likely tobe elitist, constraining and conservative are noteworthy. These kind of local discursivestruggles typify the process of adjusting to changes in universities (Krejsler 2006).They should be closely explored to understand possibilities, motives and legitimacyof new emerging forms of academic practice (Ball 1998). It is, therefore, argued that

Table 2. Contrasting views on the tenure track system at Aalto University.

Strategists Middle-level academics

Significance of tenuretrack system

Is essential in ensuring highquality research and teachingat a world-class university

Predetermines focus on discipline-based research with little rewardfor teaching or interdisciplinaryefforts.

Advantages to thosechosen

Provides a clear developmentpath with support from theuniversity

Offers significant support andspecial advantages to a chosenelite

Effect for theUniversity

Offers appropriate careersecurity while ensuring goal-oriented academic work

Creates two classes of academics:tenured and non-tenured

Comparability to otheracademic careersystems

Makes recruitment and careerpath comparable tointernational standards

Appears like an American system

Attractiveness Increases attractiveness of theuniversity in internationalrecruiting

Restricts tenure to an elite andprivileges highly mobile young(male) scholars

170 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

tenure and its effects need to be considered in-depth vis-a-vis the particular localcontext where it is transplanted, adopted and adapted.

Our study is explorative, offering ideas for further inquiry on tenure and academicfreedoms. It is limited by its focus on one university and on the initial stage in imple-menting the tenure track system. Further investigations at other universities transplant-ing US-style tenure into their particular socio-cultural contexts would be valuable toshed more light on tenure track ‘plants’ and how they establish themselves, influencingunderstandings of academic work and freedoms. More longitudinal studies would beuseful to analyze how understandings of tenure and various academic freedomsevolve over time. In particular, the image of the ‘ideal academic’ that emerges fromthe new conceptions of career-making at Aalto University, corresponding to a youngmale body constantly mobile and fully commited to work (cf. Acker 1990), needs tobe studied further. Questions of gender-based segregation and ageism are importantand timely topics for further research on renewed academic career systems more gen-erally. Comparisons between universities in different socio-cultural contexts would beparticularly welcome.

ReferencesAarrevaara, T. 2010. Academic freedom in a changing academic world. European Review 18:

S55–S69.Aarrevaara, T., I.R. Dobson, and C. Elander. 2009. Brave new world: Higher education reform

in Finland. Higher Education Management and Policy 21, no. 2: 1–18.Acker, J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and

Society 4: 139–58.Akerlind, G.S., and C. Kayrooz. 2003. Understanding academic freedom: The views of social

scientists. Higher Education Research & Development 22, no. 3: 327–44.Altbach, P.G. 2001. Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher

Education 41: 205–19.Alvesson, M., and S. Deetz. 2000. Doing critical management research. London: Sage.Amaral, A., M.L. Meek, and I.M. Larsen, eds. 2003. The higher education managerial revolu-

tion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Aula, H.-M., and J. Tienari. 2011. Becoming ‘world-class’? Reputation-building in a university

merger. Critical perspectives on international business 7: 7–29.Ball, S.J. 1998. Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in

education policy. Comparative Education 34, no. 2: 119–30.Baruch, Y., and D.T. Hall. 2004. The academic career: A model for future careers in other

sectors?, Journal of Vocational Behavior 64: 241–62.Bogue, E.G., and J. Aper. 2000. Exploring the heritage of American higher education: The

evolution of philosophy and policy. Phoenix: The Oryx Press.Bowden, R. 2009. The postsecondary professoriate: Problems of tenure, academic freedom, and

employment law. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 13, no. 3: 17–36.Brown, A.D., and M. Humphreys. 2003. Epic and tragic tales: Making sense of change. Journal

of Applied Behavioural Science 39, no. 2: 121–44.Cavalli, A., and R. Moscati. 2010. Academic systems and professional conditions in five

European countries. European Review 18, Suppl. 1: S35–53.Chait, R.P., ed. 2002. The questions of tenure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Crainer, S., and D. Dearlove. 1999. Gravy training: Inside the business of business schools.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.DeGeorge, R.T. 2003. Ethics, academic freedom and academic tenure. Journal of Academic

Ethics 1: 11–25.Du Toit, A. 2007. Autonomy as a social compact. Research report prepared for the CHE Task

Team on South African Government involvement in, and regulation of, Higher Education,Institutional Autonomy and Academic Freedom (HEIAAF). Pretoria, South Africa: Councilon Higher Education.

Studies in Higher Education 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

Engwall, L. 2007. Universities, the state, and the market: Changing patterns of universitygovernance in Sweden and beyond. Higher Education Management and Policy 19, no. 3:87–104.

Estermann, T., and T. Nokkola. 2009. University autonomy in Europe I. Exploratory study.Brussels: European University Association.

EUI (European University Institute). 2009. Finland, academic career structure. http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/AcademicCareersbyCountry/Finland.aspx.

Finkelstein, M.J. 2007. The ‘new’ look of academic careers in the United States. In Key chal-lenges to the academic profession, ed. M. Kogan and U. Teichler. Paris and Kassel:UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge and the InternationalCentre for Higher Education Research.

Henkel, M. 2005. Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. HigherEducation 49: 155–76.

Herbert, A., K. Hyytinen, P. Kutinlahti, and E. Saari. 2003. Studying organisational issues frominside: Methodological issues. Paper presented at the Third International Conference onResearching Work and Learning, July, in Tampere, Finland.

Ivie, R. 2005. A presumption of academic freedom. Review of Education, Pedagogy & CulturalStudies 27, no. 1: 53–85.

Karran, T. 2007. Academic freedom in Europe: A preliminary comparative analysis. HigherEducation Policy 20: 289–313.

Karran, T. 2009. Academic freedom in Europe: Time for a Magna Charta? Higher EducationPolicy 22: 163–89.

Kasanen, E., and Y. Sotamaa. 2010. Epilogi – tie Aalto-yliopistoon [Epilogue – The road toAalto University]. In Tulkintoja, tosiasioita, tarinoita: Helsingin kauppakorkeakoulunhistoriaa [Interpretations, real things and stories: Helsinki School of Economics History],ed. Elina Poykko and Veijo Aberg, 258–64. Porvoo, Finland: WS Bookwell.

Krejsler, J. 2006. Discursive battles about the meaning of university: The case of Danishuniversity reform and its academics. European Educational Research Journal 5, no. 3and 4: 210–20.

Kunelius, R., E. Noppari, and E. Reunanen. 2009. Media vallan verkoissa. University ofTampere, Department of Journalism and Mass Communication publications series A-112.[Media in Nets of Power.].

Marginson, S. 2008. Academic creativity under new public management: Foundations for aninvestigation. Educational Theory 58, no. 3: 269–87.

McPherson, M.S., and M.O. Shapiro. 1999. Tenure issues in higher education. Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 13, no. 1: 85–98.

Merilainen, S. 2001. Changing gendered practices: A PAR project within an academic workcommunity. PhD diss., Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, ActaUniversitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis A-192.

Mantyla, H. 2007. On ‘good’ academic work: Practicing respect at close range. PhD diss.,Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Acta UniversitatisOeconomicae Helsingiensis A-306.

National Center for Educational Statistics. 2009. Table 264: Percentage of full-time instructionalstaff with tenure for degree-granting institutions with a tenure system, by academic rank,sex, and control and type of institution: Selected years, 1993–94 through 2007–08 http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_264.asp.

O’Neil, R. 2008. Academic freedom in the wired world: Political extremism, corporate powerand the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ridell, S. 2008. Top university – Downhill for humanities? Policing the future of highereducation in the Finnish mainstream media. European Educational Research Journal 7,no. 3: 289–307.

Rasanen, K. 2008. Mika yliopistotyontekijaa liikuttaa? [What moves university employees?].Tiedepolitiikka 2, no. 8: 17–27.

Tierney, W.G. 2004. Academic freedom and tenure. Journal of HigherEducation 75, no. 2:161–77.

Tierney, W.G., and V.M. Lechuga. 2010. The social significance of academic freedom. CulturalStudies – Critical Methodologies 10, no. 2: 118–33.

172 A. Herbert and J. Tienari

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013

Tomperi, T., ed. 2009. Akateeminen kysymys? Yliopistolain kritiikki ja kiista uudesta yliopis-tosta [Academic question? Criticism on the Universities Act and the dispute over the newuniversity]. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Vaara, E. 2003. Post-acquisition integration as sensemaking: Glimpses of ambiguity, confusion,hypocrisy and politicization. Journal of Management Studies 40, no. 4: 859–94.

Valimaa, J. 2007. Tieteessa tapahtuu 52007: 5–10, Tie huippuyliopistoksi – koulutuspoliittisenkeskustelun analyysia [The road to top university – Analyses of educational policydiscussions].

Williams, J. 1999. The other politics of tenure. College Literature 26, no. 3: 226–42.Ylijoki, O.-H. 2009. Yliopiston lumo. In Akateeminen kysymys? Yliopistolain kritiikki ja kiista

uudesta yliopistosta [The magic of the university]. ed. Tuomo Tomperi, 83–92. Tampere:Vastapaino.

Studies in Higher Education 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f R

egin

a] a

t 14:

26 1

8 A

pril

2013