Peder Saether Symposium (March 9-10, 2000)

President (Rector) Emil Spjøtvoll Abstract

Home | About | Background | Program & Proceedings | Participants | Readings

CSHE > Events > Peder Saether Symposium > Program & Proceedings > President (Rector) Emil Spjøtvoll Abstract

From Research Production to Knowledge Provision
Rector Emil Spjøtvoll, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Knowledge capital is currently acknowledged to be the most important in-put factor in the economy. An increasing part of the resources of society are directed towards education, research and development activities. In global competition, each region or country must be able to monitor new developments of importance for the local economy, and to have sufficient numbers of people with relevant qualifications. The universities are expected to be the main knowledge providers. In result, universities have become mass education and mass research institutions. It is, furthermore, expected that universities, to a greater extent, are integrated in the national innovation system, thereby contributing more directly to economic development, employment and welfare.

Tensions arise when universities adapt to external expectations of knowledge development and supply. There will be more need for multidisciplinary approaches, which sometimes develops into new disciplines, challenging the traditional ones. The ability to find and use scientific knowledge will be as important as the ability to create new research results. We struggle to find the right balance between externally funded, problem oriented research, and academic qualities of independence and objectivity.

Most universities have grown into mass education institutions. Traditional, research based teaching methods and learning objectives are challenged when our politicians call for shorter, labor market oriented degrees. Learning objectives shift from formation of personality to practical skills. In turn, we face a growing mismatch between research faculty and new educational demands.

The traditional system of collegial representation must give way to strategic leadership to enable the university to adapt to rapid change and external expectations. Our strategic challenge is to promote joint efforts in research, external research partnership and new educational programs. Greater differentiation in composition and qualifications of faculty, diversification in activities, and ability to reallocate internal resources, will be necessary in order to adapt to a changing environment. Clearly tensions arise when traditional structures and individual faculty rights are challenged.

The new reality can be summarized as a shift in public expectations from research production to knowledge provision. In defining our role in the knowledge market, we should be guided by the university's comparative advantages: high quality research, a broad range of disciplines and quality education at advanced level. Academic freedom and independence cannot be an excuse for isolation, but rather a strength we may utilize as a creative, constructive and critical contributor to society.