Category: Okategoriserade

A week ago, the leaders of universities and other higher education institutions throughout Sweden gathered here in Uppsala. The occasion was the annual general assembly of the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions. It is customary at these meetings for the institution hosting the assembly to choose a topic that will interest and motivate participants. We chose ‘Democracy and Global Engagement in Academia’. 

The day was divided into sessions. The first was entitled Current ideals in democracy and the global engagement of academia, with speakers Linda Wedlin (Uppsala University), Malek Finn Khan (Swedish Defence Research Agency) and Ulrika Björkstén (Public & Science Sweden). The second was Democracy and politics in academia and on campus, with speakers Anne Ramberg (Uppsala University) and Cecilia Uddén (Radio Sweden). These were followed by a panel discussion with student perspectives on the topic. The participants were: Rasmus Lindstedt (Swedish National Union of Students), Isidore Brommare (Uppsala Association of Foreign Affairs), Arvid Rutgersson (Uppsala Peace and Development Students’ Association), Hedda Ottesen (doctoral student in global health), Sara Holmström (doctoral student in public law), Robert Egnell (Swedish Defence University) and Linda Wedlin. The day concluded with a conversation with former minister Leif Pagrotsky.

Many challenging issues were raised and discussed during the various sessions. As is often the case, some formulations stuck in the mind more than others. Linda Wedlin told listeners about her custom of treating students to an impassioned lecture on the nature of academic education, the conditions on which research depends and scientific method. She emphasised that in academia we must encourage encounters between arguments, not opinions, and that what matters is not who says something but whether or not their argument holds. Cecilia Uddén, in turn, commented that while it is often said that the first victim of war is the truth, this saying is no longer particularly pertinent. She observed that in our present polarised world, many people claim to own what they call the truth, and that it is evident instead that the first victim is not truth but doubt. The willingness to question the validity of one’s own point of view is what dies in the first wave of confrontation. 

Since the assembly, I have been reflecting on what they said. 

Scientific method
The scientific method is described differently in different disciplines, but what these descriptions all have in common is that they refer to systems for moving towards greater truth and accuracy than previously obtained. I personally have applied a three-stage model: 

1. Observation/idea/curiosity
2. Hypothesis/model
3. Test

After which the next round begins. Re-search. The result of stage 3 becomes a new starting point for stage 1. So the cycle continues. 

The insight is that all we know are approximations. Knowledge and science are a quest for the objective truth – and what that is, we can never be sure. With curiosity in our mind, we search for answers and for defects in our models and arguments. In all that we do, curiosity spurs us and doubt drives us on. This is also what drives me.

That is why Linda Wedlin’s words about her impassioned speech to students and Cecilia Uddén’s words about the loss of doubt in our polarised world were words that made me react. 

Democracy and our role
We have talked a good deal in recent years about threats to democracy, about algorithms leading to us living in bubbles even more than previously, and polarisation reducing dialogue to an exchange of set lines. We see researchers’ data challenged by opinions, as if they had equal value and belonged on the same playing field. Apples are compared with pears, direct encounters between arguments decline and discussion turns into a catalogue of opinions from the parties involved, asserted without being questioned. 

I think we in academia have more to lose from this trend than many others. The University is not an isolated island and when we are drawn into a megaphone culture where the individual’s brand carries more weight than the value of the arguments, we ultimately risk opinionated fundamentalism and an impoverishment of the investigative and exploratory practice on which all academic activities are based. 

It has always seemed to me that conformity is often harmful. I believe it is true that the climate of debate in our country suffers from a lack of openness to re-examining our standpoints and that we need to talk more across generational lines. In academia, I perceive a gap between the alleged desire for an open atmosphere for discourse and dialogue, and the actual practice. We sometimes evince exaggerated consideration in our desire to avoid offending anyone, instead of establishing a climate for conversation where our basic assumptions are that everyone means well, but our views may differ. I also believe it is ultimately dangerous to equate opinions with arguments and I know, with certainty, that we have a duty as an institution of higher education to explain the difference. 

“Without doubt, no one is wise,” said Tage Danielsson. 

Everyone’s talking about AI, at every turn and with differing agendas. The pattern is recognisable from past introductions of new technologies. On the one hand are sky-high expectations, on the other major concerns. Risks and opportunities are debated. And right in the midst of these developments is our University. 

When five years ago the University established a University-wide centre, AI4Research, the discussion surrounding AI had already truly begun to gain pace. Even back then, the technology behind Artificial Intelligence had already been in use in a range of areas at our University for quite some time, and now it was to be applied in a number of research projects. There was wild speculation in the popular debate, knowledge was shared, a greater understanding emerged and many people aired their fears.

At breakneck speed we have had to learn new software and have discovered new applications – such as the AI robot that assists with archiving. In our day-to-day lives, many of us are using tools like ChatGPT and so on to help us with translations, summarising texts and making presentations, to name just a few areas. (Alert readers of the Vice-Chancellor’s blog will remember that we have written about this subject previously.)

The reason I am raising this subject again now is that, as a decentralised University, we sometimes need to come together and join forces.

Because while these tools and technology harbour major potential to improve aspects of our programmes, support research and create more effective administrative processes, we have a huge responsibility to help steer their application. In a focused manner combined with scepticism, caution and enthusiasm, we must review our own ways of working, take advantage of new AI tools, but also manage fears concerning quality, security, legality, ethics and morals, among other aspects. A good example and a vital issue that we have so far managed successfully thanks to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and disciplinary board’s actions last winter, is that of cheating. We are learning with each step and sharing our insights. After all, a broad University like ours can contribute expertise from multiple perspectives in a way that is not available to other higher education institutions. 

Internally, a number of voices have called for a statement from the University on its approach that lays out its view. The expectation is that the management should demonstrate the way forward. I am concerned that such a statement would only limit us and rapidly become outdated. But in the spirit of being as clear as possible: 

We at Uppsala University want to create an environment in which new opportunities involving AI are assessed in order to benefit our students, staff and wider society. This means that we want to: 

In connection with all of the above, several new initiatives are now being undetaken.  

AI offers us new opportunities. It will be exciting and fascinating to see how the University, research, teaching and wider society will be affected by new insights and techniques. We have a major task, but it rests on us continuing to do what we are good at; something which is in our very nature as a higher education institution. Using scientific methods and a critical approach, we must assess, reassess, test out, evaluate, discuss and create new knowledge. That is true intelligence.

In recent weeks, many emails have arrived in the Vice-Chancellor’s mailbox. Most of the emails call on the University to distance itself from Israel’s actions in Gaza. I have received numerous such emails, all much the same. Lately, however, I have also received other messages, speaking of vulnerability and distress. These emails are written with individual care and sometimes sorrow. In these unique messages, members of staff and students express their feelings of being vulnerable, uncomfortable and sometimes afraid. 

I wish to emphasise that we cannot allow this at our University. Here, everyone must be able to be present, to work and to seek knowledge. Respect for one another and one another’s opinions goes without saying. We in the management team have not modified our views or changed our mind on the issue of taking a position in response to the demonstrations. 

Let me be absolutely clear.

A university is a place for critics and critical thinking. If university leaders take a position on a matter of social debate in the name of the institution, this jeopardises the foundation upon which academia rests, by limiting the freedom of the individuals who constitute the whole. In matters of opinion, there is no voting and no pursuit of consensus at an academic institution. On the contrary, we must always defend the insight that the opinion of the majority at a university must never be enforced on all its staff or students. For this reason, the University does not take political positions. We refrain from doing so in the name of democracy, even when it is inconvenient and difficult. 

We are a university and must remain free from pressure and always defend freedom and democracy. Of course we want the war to end, the killing to stop, the humanitarian aid to reach those in need. Just as we have stated before, we hope that this historically protracted conflict, which has escalated in a terrible way since 7 October, will end in a peaceful solution. 

Until that happens, everyone active at our University must be able to feel welcome and safe. This is a shared responsibility. 

Over ten years ago, Campus Gotland became part of Uppsala University. Much has happened since then. Many students have received high-quality education in a wonderful environment. We have developed a graduate school that is both innovative and competent. The Blue Centre is a force for Gotland, for Sweden and even the world. The Department of Game Design has perhaps the most international programmes at the University, with unique expertise not previously available in Uppsala, as is the case at many other departments that have been strengthened and expanded since the merger. Problems and obstacles have largely been overcome and I can honestly describe the trend as a success. However, as in every other part of our great University, there are  adjustments that need to be made.

Recently, several statements regarding the range of programmes at Campus Gotland have been made in the media, most recently in an open letter to the University from the organisation Tillväxt Gotland. Change often raises concerns. I completely understand that, of course. At the same time, I see the commitment as a strength to build upon. 

At Uppsala University, the faculties are responsible for the quality and content of their programmes and research. Several faculties have recently decided, independently of each other, to put on hold or discontinue certain programmes. I understand that it may look like coordinated cuts, but it is the result of decisions being taken in different parts of the organisation at the same time. The reasons for the proposed changes differ between the different programmes. One programme has a lack of applicants, another has too few students, a third has been put on hold because it will be redesigned, a fourth will be offered by another education provider, and so on. All in all, these changes will be noticeable in the short term and the number of students on campus will temporarily fall. At the same time, future-oriented development work is under way on the teacher education programmes, for example, but also on the business studies programme, the results of which we hope to see soon. The target of 1,500 students on campus remains and it is my conviction that we will be back at those levels within the next few years. Research will also be further strengthened, and discussions on those initiatives are ongoing. 

It is normal for all higher education institutions to review their range of programmes at regular intervals and make changes to them. In order to live up to our high standards and goals, we have launched extensive efforts to profile Campus Gotland more clearly. The Campus Gotland Board, chaired by Vice-Chancellor Tora Holmberg, is tasked with driving these future-oriented ventures together with the University’s Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor, Jenny Helin. Many employees both in Uppsala and on Gotland will be involved in this. The Campus Gotland Board will discuss the profiling and focus of these ventures this week, and a decision on the new focus will be made at the end of the summer. 

As Vice-Chancellor, I can assure you all that Uppsala University is, and will continue to be, a responsible stakeholder on Gotland. Uppsala University has a long-term committment to Campus Gotland. 

UUniFI is the name of a new initiative at the University very close to my heart. The abbreviation stands for Uppsala University Future Institutes, whose aim is to enable research into complex societal challenges by harnessing the breadth of Uppsala University. The institutes will be characterised by excellence and innovation, generate new research and establish new collaborations, increase visibility and strengthen the international position of the University. 

The idea behind the institutes has been in the works for a long time. A seed was planted in the previous government’s research policy bill, which raised the issue of profile areas. That task, as we interpreted it, was to identify a number of profile areas for the University. It was a difficult challenge for a university like ours, as our profile is, in actual fact, to not have one. Rather, we want to be a broad, leading university with a range of areas of excellence identified by researchers that vary over time. The question is an interesting one, though. What more can we do as a university to contribute to a better world, as we typically say.

If our breadth is our strength, perhaps we need to embrace it; or so my thinking goes. 

There is much discussion across society about the challenges we face: the climate issue, pandemics, conflicts, data security, migration and so on. These challenges are difficult for many different reasons. There are often no clear-cut answers; conflicting objectives influence choices; the issues are multidisciplinary in nature and require multiple resources that do not typically work together. 

Across our fantastic University, many people are contributing in different ways to finding answers to questions related to all these challenges facing society. That is positive, but I think we can achieve more if we connect the forces that are currently strong but scattered across the University. The question is how?

My answer, after visiting other universities and holding many fruitful discussions with wise people at our University, is UUniFI. To start with, we have identified six different institutes with specialisations in which we are currently strong and where we believe the University can quickly establish broad, constructive, rewarding and world-leading collaborations – collaborations that could produce the answers the world is waiting for.

These institutes are focused on: 

• Conflicting objectives – Multidisciplinary studies of conflicting objectives and synergies in processes where society is being transformed to tackle major challenges
• Multi- and interdisciplinarity – Platform and physical environment for the initiation and development of problem-driven and thematic research cooperation across subject, faculty and disciplinary domain lines (CIRCUS)
• AI research – Multidisciplinary studies of the opportunities and problems related to the use of AI and the digitalisation of society
• Migration – Multidisciplinary studies focusing on processes related to migration and integration 
• Precision health – Multidisciplinary studies focusing on increasing and providing more equitable health by preventing, diagnosing and treating with precision 
• Green energy transition – Multidisciplinary studies focusing on the energy transition and society’s increasing energy demand

These are lofty ambitions, perhaps even a little cocky. It’s a question of sticking our neck out, but not too much. We can back up our claim that we can do this. At Uppsala University, we have capabilities that not many others have. I am convinced that these well-motivated initiatives can deliver better, more pioneering and relevant research and unite all parts of the University. A common feature of all the identified areas is that they have strong research across the board. This means they can mobilise – both individually and by connecting with each other – interdisciplinary added value with a strong relevance to these major societal challenges. Through UUniFI, we are bringing together research from all of the University’s faculties and disciplinary domains, enabling them to make an even greater contribution to the shaping of society.