A higher education policy might, for instance, include position statements on the role of education in democratic development and the provision of skills for society, and the importance of research in improving competitiveness and societal progress. A higher education policy agenda could also include core values to protect, such as the institutional autonomy of universities and freedom for students, teachers and researchers to seek out knowledge. The higher education policy would be based on the individual institution’s development needs to enable it to contribute to overall developments in society in the best possible way.

The difference between what we have today and what the higher education sector needs to be, is therefore an expression of the reform that’s needed in the sector. Perhaps the funding system needs to be restructured, perhaps reforms are needed to bolster autonomy, or maybe changes are needed in the admissions procedure to bring higher education more in line with society’s need for skills and expertise. Depending on the ideology and goals, different reform catalogues could be formulated as a foundation for the hard work of drafting reports and bills. So essentially, the standard way of producing policy.

The concern for further education is that while it is the recipient of considerable state resources, it is not an important area in its own right. Higher education is needed to meet challenges in other areas: for example to help achieve the energy transition, provide skills for a changing labour market, or to help solve problems regarding equality in the school system. That’s all well and good.

But far more rarely does anyone ask the question: What do the institutions themselves need if they are to build a strong operation for the good of society? The important matter of the institutions’ own needs if they are to serve as a crucial force in all areas of society, long-term, has been completely absent from any negotiating table during recent governments’ terms of office.

Having said that, maybe it doesn’t matter that much. The higher education sector is robust! There is economic scope and there are great cohorts of staff doing an excellent job, even though higher education policy itself is being ignored. Ground-breaking research is still being done, and universities and other higher education institutions are continuously developing and updating their programmes to meet the needs of students and the labour market.

Even so, something feels off. The risk of not having a higher education policy is that institutions become easy prey when other issues come to the fore. If for example a security-policy issue should arise, the temptation may be to take swift, ineffective action to the detriment of the higher education sector. Or if, say, 180 million kronor is needed somewhere in the political sphere – surely this can be taken from the apparently so well-funded higher education sector, as it doesn’t have a particularly robust reform agenda in any case, and it’s an area of low political interest.

This is what could happen if, like Alice in Wonderland, you don’t know – and don’t much care – where you’re going. But it is certainly an interpretation that is a bit exaggerated.

It’s a source of pride and joy to see the breadth of KTH’s research and how it’s reflected in the various panels at Almedalen. Energy solutions for the future, how remote working can benefit regional development, and what education is in a world of AI.

These are some of the topics in which representatives from KTH will be engaging and debating.

This year, there’s the opportunity to book a young expert on a panel. The idea is that more, and above all different, voices and perspectives should be heard in the debate and political discussion during Almedalen Week. This is certainly a good idea, and next year we may be joined by even more participants in the panels and seminar, bringing a wider perspective and broader experience than usual. It could be an important step in being able to better reflect opportunities for the future.

I have heard various opinions and predictions saying that Almedalen is on the decline, and that this year’s over 2,000 events may not attract as many visitors as last year, when there were 35,000 or so.

But coming together and mooting ideas is always needed in a democracy, and at a university like KTH. In this respect, Almedalen Week is vital in reflecting the times we live in, discussing the future and learning lessons from our experiences. We will have to see how this summer’s event goes, but interest initially at any rate remains high for the political week in Visby [the main city on Gotland island].

Perhaps we’ll meet in Visby the week after Midsummer…? Either way, I wish you a nice, relaxing summer break!

The appointment is for the period from 1 May 2023 to 30 September 2024, i.e. 17 months rather than three years as previously. Reducing the mandate period is an unusual move, which the government claims to be making for reasons of security policy – something that prompts questions as well as concern.

Under Sweden’s Higher Education Ordinance and Government Agencies Ordinance, the university board has several important jobs to do. The board is responsible to the government, must make sure that operations are conducted efficiently and in accordance with prevailing laws, is responsible for the overall direction and organisation of the university, and responsible too for ensuring that internal governance and control are in place and functioning properly.

This is a broad definition of the board’s responsibilities, and it includes all central operational issues at the level and the degree of detail it is possible to deal with within the framework of its remit. The board also governs, of course, by maintaining dialogue with the university management in different ways, and by monitoring and checking – via internal audit and internal control systems – that the university is taking its responsibility and being managed in an appropriate manner, and obviously in accordance with rules and laws.

When the board is appointed, it is preceded by a nomination process whereby special nominators draw up a proposal. The proposal is intended to help ensure a diversely composed board of directors, with collective expertise that can live up to the task of a board. The nominators are also given a mandate, and they prepare a balanced proposal which could, for instance, be a balance between people with a management background, with knowledge of the government and national governance, with central competences in important areas of research and education for the university, and so on.

It is perhaps less well known that the board members each have direct or more operational responsibility for a specific or more delimited area of the operation. So it is the collective expertise that matters, and the value can be found in the board’s discussions based on different perspectives and jointly in the boardroom, rather than having the board or individual members micromanaging fine details of specific operational issues.

Occasionally, of course, the government wants to reach out to the university for one reason or another, on some kind of specific operational issue. This is normally done via the spending authorisation, either for an individual university or for the entire higher education sector, in special government missions, in the government agency dialogue and, more rarely, in direct dispatches with questions or orders in connection with some kind of urgent occurrence in society.

There are many ways to govern agencies under the government, and it is up to the government to do so in as wise a manner as possible. To now reduce the boards’ mandate period with reference to there being a lack of some defined specialist expertise is unlikely to go down in history as one of these wise ways of governing universities and other institutes of higher education. But the government, of course, is in charge, and it is for us to continue to work loyally under these new conditions. I do, however, look forward to building more trust between state and university in the future.

This challenge-based approach is the main focus of the Global Development Hub, GDH, which began in 2017 in association with four African universities: University of Rwanda, University of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Strathmore University (Kenya) and Botho University (Botswana). Together, we have run several courses, held student exchanges and also teacher training. This also makes the GDH a focal point for our presence on the African continent.

In addition, last week we were able to extend our collaboration with the University of Rwanda by signing a Memorandum of Understanding, or MoU. The MoU also includes other parties in Rwanda and a broader portfolio of activities than before, including participation in research and innovation.

Rwanda is a small country in East Africa that has developed rapidly over the past 20 years, and is in different ways a fulcrum for innovation activities, enterprise and societal development in its region. The university has also received ever-better resources for its activities in recent decades, so extending our partnership with it is the right move strategically.

The challenge-driven education model is, as mentioned, pivotal to work within the GDH, but it can of course also be used for activities on campus in Stockholm.

The basic idea is the same: to find potential solutions to societal challenges by combining the challenge in education with innovative solutions. One example is OpenLab, which is run by KTH alongside several higher education institutions in the region, the City of Stockholm and Region Stockholm. It presents an opportunity for our partners to place their concrete challenges in the course and project environment provided by OpenLab.

But the images also prompt questions. How can this happen? Again?  Is this as far as we have come with all the knowledge, research results and technical solutions we have today, in everything from materials, construction, solidity, urban planning, safety and security?

Following the 2011 earthquake in Japan, for instance, the country has focused heavily on securing structures with, as far as I am aware, successful results, and on preparing its people and buildings against future tremors.

There is a great deal of knowledge and competence at KTH regarding different aspects of earthquakes. This includes research into being able to better predict when an earthquake might happen.

And that is a source of hope.