A careful embrace: Tracing the Europeanisation of Aalborg University,1980–1994

Abstract

This article examines the Europeanisation of Aalborg University Centre (AUC) from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s – a period during which AUC transformed from a young, small, and emerging university still shaping its identity into a well-established institution with a defined academic profile and extensive international collaborations. Founded in 1974 with a strong regional focus, AUC nonetheless pursued international initiatives early on, driven by both university management and faculty members. The study focuses on how these efforts – initially framed as internationalisation and later as Europeanisation – were reflected in the university magazine Center Nyt, which served as the primary internal communication channel for nearly two decades. For AUC, international engagement became a key strategy for establishing a distinct identity within the Danish university landscape. Given Denmark’s accession to the EC in 1973 and AUC’s founding shortly thereafter, European institutions have always been a significant part of the university’s environment. The study concludes that while AUC embraced Europe and Europeanisation, this did not limit its broader international outlook, recognising that its global engagement extended beyond Europe.

Introduction

Europeanisation has been a major force in shaping todays university landscape. It is therefore essential to examine the historical roots of Europeanisation within higher education. This study seeks to explore how Europeanisation has evolved in recent Danish university history and thereby contributing to a deeper understanding of its historical foundations.

In many respects, Europeanisation in higher education is closely intertwined with the emergence of the European Union. Understanding this process requires situating national developments within the broader European trajectory of integration. Denmark offers a particularly revealing case in this regard, as its early membership positioned it at the intersection of Nordic traditions and European frameworks. Denmark was the first – and for a long time the only – Nordic country within the European Communities (EC). Though Denmark applied for membership, along with the UK and Ireland, as early as in 1961, French opposition to British membership affected the country’s application, delaying the process for more than a decade (Olesen, 2021; Rasmussen and Rüdiger, 1990: 244). Following a national referendum, however, Denmark ultimately joined the EC on the 1st of January 1973, with the membership marking the continuation of Denmark’s long-standing tradition of participation in international organisations.

Initially, this EC membership especially impacted agricultural policy (Olesen, 2021: 60). Danish policy towards the EC was typically characterised by caution, and intergovernmental orientation, and a deliberately low profile (Olesen, 2006: 46). That meant the higher education and research sector remained largely unaffected by the Danish membership of the EC, and throughout the 1970s, these areas were still mostly regarded as a matter of national sovereignty (Andreasen et al., 2013, 42–43). This however changed in the 1980s as political attention increasingly turned first towards internationalisation, and later towards Europeanisation (Hansen, 1997: 276; Lamberty, 2022: 80).

This article examines the Europeanisation of Aalborg University Centre (AUC) from the early 1980s to the mid-1990s. This period represents AUC’s transition from a young, small, and still-emerging university, in the midst of defining its identity, into a well-established institution with a clear strategic direction, a distinct academic profile, and a large-scale international co-operation. Set up in the late summer of 1974, AUC was founded during a period of deepening Danish integration into the EC. This entanglement of the university centre’s history with Danish internationalisation activity makes it an exceptionally interesting case study of Europeanisation, since from its inception, internationalisation was a defining characteristic of the university’s identity. In recent research on the history of Aalborg University, international co-operation has however received little attention, as it has been mentioned only sporadically in overviews and anniversary publications (Ingemann and Madsen, 2024; Rostgaard, 2014; Simonsen, 2023; Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024).

This study addresses higher education in Denmark and AUC history by exploring (1) how Europeanisation took shape within AUC and analysing (2) who participated in discussions about internationalisation and Europeanisation. It furthermore (3) crucially analyses the arguments rectors and other university staff employed, and (4) gives an overview of the various initiatives and activities that contributed to shaping the university’s international profile. Overall, this article focuses on what scholars of Europeanisation have previously called everyday Europeanisation and bottom-up Europeanisation or Europeanisation from below (Maldener, 2022; Östling et al., 2026a; Trenz, 2011). In other words: the article addresses how Europeanisation happened inside the university centre and affected everyday life, initiatives and activities.

As stated in the introduction to this special issue, we distinguish between internationalism and Europeanism (Östling et al., 2026a, 2026b). Europeanisation can be seen as a form of internationalisation, but it is important to point out that it goes beyond that. Linked to the EC’s/EU’s legal framework and institutional structure, it creates a supranational system with binding rules and strong political coordination. Europeanisation is closely associated, though not exclusively, with the emergence and evolution of the EC/EU, particularly through the efforts of the EU and its member states to foster closer cooperation, for instance in the field of education. In this article, I draw on the same distinction between internationalism and Europeanisation. However, as stated above, the focus is on Europeanisation from below (Östling et al., 2026a).

As its principal source, this study utilises the university magazine Center Nyt, which served as the main internal channel of communication within the university for nearly two decades. This magazine was published around 20 times per year, with each issue spanning around 20 pages. With a few exceptions in the 1990s, when the magazine was twice as big, it knew a circulation of approximately 7500 copies (Uglen, 2013: 4–7). While the main audience was staff and students, the university leadership was well-aware that Center Nyt also attracted external readers, particularly journalists from the regional newspaper Aalborg Stiftstidende which closely followed AUC’s activities (Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024: 148–153). That said, Center Nyt was first and foremost a magazine by and for the university community, which also explains why it maintained an inward-looking focus. Its content blended official announcements and meeting minutes with poetry, book reviews, debates on academic programs and working conditions, as well as reports from study and research stays abroad. Of particular interest in Center Nyt to this study are the minutes from the university senate (konsistorium), the rector’s annual welcome speeches at the beginning of the term, and articles on initiatives shaping AUC’s international and European profile. These sections, offer valuable insights into why and how arguments about Europe and opinions on European policies were expressed in the daily life and work at AUC. They also reveal much about the effects of AUC’s participation in European schemes, tellingly showing how everyday Europeanisation was both articulated and practiced within the university.

To supplement the material in Center Nyt, this piece also draws on AUC’s yearbooks from 1974 to 1988. Published every second year, these thematic volumes each exceeded 300 pages, and they offer detailed insights into the university’s development. They include examples of research and teaching across departments, as well as overviews of AUC’s external collaborations. After 1988, the yearbooks were replaced by shorter pamphlets featuring brief articles that highlight key aspects of the university’s work and progress. Although these yearbooks are much shorter than those prior to 1988, they are still useful sources to explore AUC’s international dimension.

Although both the university magazine and the yearbooks provide valuable insights into the university’s everyday life, initiatives and activities, they are not without limitations. In the early years, several members of the editorial staff and active contributors came from the social sciences and humanities. This is evident in the analysis of the university’s internationalisation and Europeanisation, where initiatives from the social sciences in particular frequently appear in Center Nyt. Sven Caspersen, the university’s long-serving rector, also came from a social sciences background, a perspective that may have shaped the emphasis on internationalisation and, later, Europeanisation in his annual welcome speeches. Nevertheless, these processes were not limited to his personal agenda; internationalisation (and subsequently Europeanisation) formed a core element of the university’s overall strategy and extended across all faculties.

Based on this material, the study shows that AUC embraced Europe and Europeanisation, but not in a way that constrained its broader international profile, as AUC’s strategy clearly extended beyond Europe. The article is structured chronologically and divided into three main sections followed by a conclusion. The first section examines AUC’s early internationalisation during the period 1980–1985. It places special emphasis on the key actors involved in launching AUC’s various international enterprises. The second section focuses on the final years of the 1980s, specifically the period 1986–1989, when the Europeanisation gained significant momentum with the launch of the EC-programme Erasmus. The third part zooms in on the early 1990s, a period during which Europeanisation became more institutionalised through the establishment of the International Office and the introduction of educational programmes focusing on European issues. Before going over these three parts, however, the article starts with a brief set of contextual remarks on the transformation of the Danish higher education landscape in the 1960s and 1970s, which precedes the period under study but nonetheless explains the particular trajectory of Aalborg University Centre in its enthusiasm for Europeanisation.

Danish expansion of higher education

In the 1960s and 1970s, Danish society was characterised by profound social and economic transformations. Over the course of a few decades, the economy rapidly shifted from an agrarian to an industrial, and subsequently to a service-based structure, thereby also altering the Danish occupational structure. At the same time, the construction of a welfare state accelerated from the late 1950s to the early 1970s (Andreasen et al., 2013; Hansen, 2015; Rasmussen and Rüdiger, 1990: 149–152).

As in much of the Western world, these changes were accompanied by a need for university graduates to acquire new qualifications (Hansen, 1997: 30), and by a notable increase in the number of students entering higher education. To change universities from elite to mass institutions, subsequent Danish governments therefore launched plans to expand the higher education sector (Hansen, 1997: 29; Rügg, 2011: 41–43). Politically, there was a strong push to strengthen the connection between universities and society, aiming to ensure that graduates could transition seamlessly into the labour market upon completing their studies. University education was furthermore increasingly regarded as an investment in society, with the state being responsible for ensuring high quality research which produced results that met societal needs (Hansen, 1997: 30–31; Lamberty, 2022: 28). This also reflected the political wish to exert greater control over the university sector, which resulted in the Danish Parliament passing a series of new laws in 1970 and 1973, known as the Styrelseslove. These laws effectively dismantled the former system of the so-called ‘professorial dominance’ (professorvælde), introducing a new governance model that granted lecturers greater influence, in part shared with the students (Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024: 40–56). The struggle over who should determine the direction of the country’s universities intensified, as it unfolded alongside the student rebellion that began in 1968 (Hansen, 2008: 107–124). The shifting political approach to higher education also marked a key step in the transition from an industrial to a knowledge-based society, a transformation that would dominate for decades to come (Kristensen et al., 2007: 65).

In this context, the government also created a series of new universities. In 1966, this period of expansion begun with the establishment of Odense University an event which was followed by the foundation of University Centre of Southern Denmark (Sydjysk Universitetscenter) in 1971 and Roskilde University Centre (RUC) in 1972. Unlike RUC, the University Centre of Southern Denmark functioned as a municipal research centre in Esbjerg; however, it was never granted the authority to offer full university programmes (Slottved, 2020). In 1974, the establishment of Aalborg University Centre followed and marked the end of this period of expansion for the foreseeable future (Nevers, 2016: 9–11). Importantly, this creation of three new universities also facilitated a more even geographical distribution of higher education. With the establishment of institutions in Aalborg and Odense, Denmark was, for the first time regarded as sufficiently ‘covered’ in terms of regional access to higher education. While the university in Odense ended up following the model of the traditional universities, RUC and AUC however, represented a newer model of higher education through their emphasis on collaboration with the surrounding community and flexible educational structure (Caspersen, 1986).

The universities in Roskilde and Aalborg do indeed have a very particular university ‘profile’, as they can be characterised as ‘reform universities’. The set up of such ‘modern’ and ‘flexible’ institutions was part of a larger international trend, in which politicians, professors and university leaders sought to actively reform the universities on several different levels. Perhaps the most distinctive characteristic of these reform universities was an attempt to restructure academic studies and institutional frameworks. At RUC, this was expressed in the abolition of traditional faculties, and the establishment of new research practices and interdisciplinary collaborations. In Aalborg, reform activities focused on pedagogical innovations through problem-based-learning (PBL), group and project work (Simonsen, 2025; Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024). Another defining feature was that many students, along with some teachers, especially in the early years, rejected the so-called ‘bourgeois’ knowledge and curricula, instead embracing new Marxist theories that centred on the working class (Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024: 144).

Furthermore, both university centres implemented the so-called ‘base year’ (basisår): a politically mandated pedagogical innovation designed to allow students to change their educational direction without extending the overall duration of their studies (Nevers, 2016: 26–32; Østeraas, 1984; Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024, 157–158). In addition, reform universities also often had a special relationship to their immediate surroundings. For AUC, its situatedness in North Jutland meant that the university, was far from the capital of Copenhagen, and thus distant from the attention of politicians and other influential national networks. This contrasted with RUC, which was located near the capital and attracted far greater media and political attention. The geographical location of AUC moreover had a significant importance for its local and regional commitment, which was unprecedented in the context of Danish higher education. It also mattered in relation to the university’s early international focus and engagement, to which the next section turns.

First international steps and the American influence: 1980–1985

In the early spring of 1980, sociologist Daniel Rosenberg from the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay (UWGB) arrived at AUC. In a short notice, it was announced in Center Nyt, that during a 2-week visit Rosenberg was commissioned to investigate the possibility of establishing an exchange agreement between the two universities (Center Nyt, 14:6 1980: 8). Being particularly interested in PBL, the problem-oriented approach practised at AUC, Rosenberg reported to the local newspaper that at UWGB, both management and faculty were interested in learning how to educate students in a way that would enable them to apply their knowledge and experiences more directly within the society in which they were to operate (Aalborg Stiftstidende, 1980: 1–2). Clearly, his visit was considered worthwhile, since a few months after Rosenberg’s stay in Aalborg, AUC repaid the visit by sending Ib Jørgensen, Associate Professor from the Institute of Planning, across the Atlantic. When Jørgensen returned, it was with a draft for a co-operation agreement, which was approved by the university senate shortly afterwards (Center Nyt, 19:6 1980: 8–9).

This interaction between AUC and the American university, which was exemplary for the coming-into-being of Aalborg’s university agreements at the time, was initiated through high-level engagement at the rectoral level. In this regard, the figure of Sven Caspersen, who had served as university rector since 1976, deserves special attention, since his ‘top-down’ ideas for internationalisation heavily characterised the early 1980s internationalisation policy of the university in Aalborg.

The collaboration between AUC and the University of Wisconsin was indeed initiated and orchestrated by Rector Sven Caspersen with the aim of creating a strong international profile for the university centre, which, in a Danish context, was mainly marked by its status as a regional university. Caspersen had participated at an international conference about renewal of university programmes, where he met the rector of UWGB. The two rectors soon realised that they had several things in common, among others that they both had similar ideas about reshaping traditional university studies (Center Nyt, 19:6 1980: 8). Furthermore, the two universities were about the same age and size in relation to number of students and employees. Given the many commonalities between AUC and UWGB, collaboration and exchanges seemed obvious, and Caspersen went to visit UWGB (Aalborg Stiftstidende, 1980: 1).

Within the university, Caspersen’s drive to internationalise AUC was well known. Caspersen diligently participated in international committees and conferences, and as Ib Jørgensen described in his travel report to Center Nyt after his visit at UWGB: ‘As most people at AUC will know, Casper [Sven Caspersen] has tirelessly sought to cement AUC’s reputation in several foreign countries such as the USSR and the USA’ (Center Nyt, 19:6 1980: 8). There is little to no doubt that Caspersen played a pivotal, individual, role in shaping AUC’s international outlook. He never pursued an academic career and with a master’s degree in economics from the University of Copenhagen, he was clearly more interested in management and administration. As a passionate advocate for international co-operation, Caspersen served for many years as a leading figure in this area (Simonsen and Rüdiger, 2024, 79–83). Nevertheless, as will be explored further in the following sections, the roles and the contributions of others – both within the management team and among teachers – were also vital in advancing AUC’s international agenda.

UWGB was not the first American university to partner with AUC. In the late 1970s, AUC had already established contact with St. Cloud State University (SCSU) in Minnesota (Center Nyt, 14–15:4 1978: 12). The collaboration between the two universities was straightforward and involved minimal bureaucracy. The exchange agreements covered both students and teachers, where the later agreement with UWGB, however, primarily was aimed at teachers. The idea was that each teacher retained their salary and employment status at their home institution in Aalborg or Wisconsin–Green Bay, respectively, but carried out their duties at the host university (Center Nyt, 19:6 1980: 8–9). It was no surprise that AUC primarily targeted American universities in its early international collaborations. At the time, American universities enjoyed considerable prestige and were highly sought after as partners. In the decades following World War II, they were widely regarded as the foremost in the world, marking what many consider a golden era in American higher education (Fink et al., 2003: 126–127; Östling, 2024: 87–102). Especially in the early 1980s, Center Nyt frequently reported on the collaboration with the two American universities via interviews with the American guest teachers, funding opportunities or travel reports from AUC researchers’ stays in the USA (Center Nyt, 9:6 1980: 20–21; Center Nyt, 12:7 1981: 12–14; Center Nyt, 16:8 1982 23–26; Center Nyt, 18:10 1984: 12–13).

The contracts with American universities were part of a larger interest among universities in the early 1980s in expanding international connections. Similar to the case of Lund University (Östling, 2026), internationalisation became a strategic priority at AUC from the late 1970s. In Center Nyt, this increasing penchant for internationalisation was expressed through articles about research projects in Third-World countries, as they were then referred to, participation in international conferences and student exchange opportunities through international student organisations such as AIESEC (International Association of Students in Economics and Business). Although the relations with universities in the United States took a clear lead in the university’s discourse on internationalisation, several other collaborations were also established and commented on throughout the later 1970s and 1980s, including, for example, partnerships with Iceland, the Soviet Union (notably the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic), Poland and other counties (Årsberetning for AUC 1982–1984, 1984: 98). In addition, AUC was also engaged in Nordic co-operation, through the Nordic Summer University and study visits to neighbouring universities (Hermansen, 2000). Overall, this early internationalisation was primarily driven by forces within the university – the drive was internal, not external as would be the case later on (Hansen, 1997: 276).

In Center Nyt, this striving towards internationalisation was particularly evident in Caspersen’s welcome articles published at the start of each academic year. When he was elected to his second term in February 1979, his inaugural speech, for example, centred on the importance of the need to strengthen co-operation with institutions and universities in other countries (Center Nyt, 12:5 1979: 3–4). In his welcome articles from the early 1980s, Caspersen similarly and consistently emphasised the importance of international engagement. In September 1982 he explained why internationalisation was one of AUC’s main priorities. Here he explained why the university centre had already been working for several years to offer students and teachers the opportunity to spend shorter or longer stays abroad (Center Nyt, 1:9 1982: 4): ¹

In my opinion, it is necessary to continue to expand in this area and thereby create a number of additional opportunities for both students and employees. We like to think of ourselves as Danish, but outside the Nordic region, very few people understand our language, and in population size, we are only ½ of New York or a village in China, as a witty soul once put it. That is why it is so important that we increase our ability to work internationally.

In the following years, Caspersen continued to highlight the various opportunities for internationalisation and the need for students to gain insight into other scholarly disciplines as well as cultural, social, and political conditions. The International Year, which I will return to shortly, and the university centre’s first exchange programme were recurring themes, but so were internship opportunities through international student organisations such as AIESEC and IASTE (the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience), and exchange agreements with American universities.

Co-operation and exchange agreements were one part of AUC’s internationalisation that the management worked on in the early 1980s. Another was the involvement in international committees and organisations. Through membership of and involvement in various international associations such as the International Rectors’ Conference, the Standing Conference of Rectors of the European Universities (CRE), the International University Centre (IUE), and the International Association of Universities (IAU), the university management, and especially Caspersen, sought to connect AUC to international partners (Årsberetning for AUC 1976–1978, 1978: 75; Årsberetning for AUC 1982–1984, 1984: 98). Internationalisation also meant bringing the world to Aalborg and in June 1982, AUC hosted the annual seminar for newly appointed university rectors, jointly organised by the CRE, and the OECD’s Division for Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE) (Center Nyt, 9:2 1982: 2; Ydesen, 2019).

While all these internationalisation activities were underway, Caspersen also called for greater political attention to the international dimension of higher education (Center Nyt, 1982: 4). Although both the political and public debate for several years had focused on Denmark’s international engagement and its entry into the EC, AUC’s strategic focus on internationalisation was, in a Danish context, still somewhat unusual. The wish to establish international contacts and initiatives within and outside the university centre was, moreover, met with some hesitation from the civil service. This was for example reflected in the fact that the Ministry of Education was slow to process AUC’s applications for international activities (Rostgaard, 2014: 36). In the meantime, the university centre independently pursued the development of both formal and informal co-operation agreements with academic institutions outside Denmark. Center Nyt frequently featured calls for applications from various foundations, that were available to students and teachers in exchange programmes.

Internationalisation of education

As the university management worked to establish co-operation agreements with institutions abroad and navigating political hurdles, important parallel initiatives were also ‘from the bottom up’, led by a group of lecturers from the Faculty of Social Sciences. As early as in 1978, six teachers formed the Development Research Group (GUF), with the aim of promoting ‘education and research in the problems and conditions of developing countries’ (‘AUC going international’).

The GUF group launched several initiatives in both research and education during the first half of the 1980s, which were all primarily aimed at Third-World countries. Through these actions, several members of the GUF group also became a driving force in the more general internationalisation of education internally at AUC. One of the group’s most important contributions to the internationalisation of education was their initiative to develop the International Year programme, which quickly gained the support of the university management. Designed as an exchange programme for postgraduate students, it was implemented in January 1981 and received enthusiastic coverage in Center Nyt.

The concept behind the International Year was to integrate studies of international relations with a 3 to 5-month internship abroad. A key goal of the programme was to integrate theoretical knowledge with practical experience. The establishment of the International Year had been in the making almost since the establishment of AUC and was described in the statutory instrument (Fællesbekendtgørelsen) from 1974, that is, the Ministry of Education’s framework for AUC’s educational programmes. Still, the GUF group needed to make the management aware of the opportunity. During the first half of the 1980s, International Year was one of the international initiatives most frequently covered by Centre Nyt. Judging by the coverage in Center Nyt the International Year was regarded as AUC’s international flagship. The university magazine regularly reported in detail on its content, registration deadlines, and other practical information. At the celebration of the initiative’s fifth anniversary in 1985, Center Nyt reported that students from AUC had been in more than 15 countries around the world (Center Nyt, 16:11 1985: 12–13).

The value of having an international focus at AUC was often articulated by the GUF group in Center Nyt throughout the 1980s. Two articles will serve as illustrative examples. A common thread in both is their emphasis on the needs of the labour market. In the article ‘The internationalisation of education at AUC. Rumours or reality?’, lecturer Jens Müller from the Faculty of Engineering argued how the business community’s demand for qualified and adventurous professionals increased the need to internationalise more programmes (Center Nyt, 12:6 1980: 3):

Capital and technology are becoming increasingly internationalised. In Denmark, this has led to an increasing demand for people who are willing and qualified to travel south of Kruså [city in southern Denmark], even south of the Adriatic and beyond. In the past, it was enough to send people who simply expressed a willingness to go out into the world. They thought sending professionals with a sense of adventure and idealism was enough to get by.

Nevertheless, those days were over, explained Jens Müller. There was a need for professional education combined with ‘cultural humility and social insight’ (Center Nyt, 12:6 1980: 3). The International Year was initially aimed at the social sciences and engineering programmes and was geographically focused on the Third-World countries and the United States. Eventually, the humanities programmes would also be included in internationalisation, but how this was to be done, was not as obvious as in the other fields (Center Nyt, 12:6 1980: 3).

Another noteworthy example of how the GUF group argued for internationalisation is from October 1983, where one of the driving forces behind the internationalisation of education, Olav Jull Sørensen, associate professor of Business Economics, pointed out why it was so crucial for the university centre to engage in international activities. It is interesting to note that he distinguished between Europe and other internationalisation activities in this context (Center Nyt, 4:10 1983: 5):

We are in the midst of a new wave of internationalisation. What characterises the current wave is that more and more institutions and, thus, jobs are taking on an international dimension. International relations can no longer be isolated to specific institutions and channelled through embassies. Most companies are looking to export. Most public institutions engage in European and international cooperation. More and more international organisations are being established that Danish institutions must cooperate with, etc.

Together, the two examples illustrate the proactive role of the GUF group in advancing internationalisation efforts at AUC. Furthermore, Olav Jull Sørensen emphasised that the nation-state would become subordinate to the international social order and that education must be based on international and not national conditions. According to Jull Sørensen, AUC was part of the ongoing wave of internationalisation, among other things, through establishing the International Year, which had the clear objective of adding an international dimension to the students’ education (Center Nyt, 4:10 1983: 5).

The strong focus on the internationalisation of education, which both teachers and management worked towards in the first half of the 1980s, continued to be present in Center Nyt’s articles in 1984 and 1985, and became an increasingly important part of the university’s profile. Articles on opportunities to study in the USA (Center Nyt, 4:11 1984: 20), minutes from the university senate discussing internationalisation as a joint research theme (Center Nyt, 5:11 1984: 12), or descriptions of the International Studies programme’s fifth anniversary celebration (Center Nyt, 16:11 1985: 12–13) are all examples that illustrates this trend.

In all, the analysis of Center Nyt from the early 1980s thus reveals that AUC’s initial internationalisation efforts were internally driven by two parallel approaches. One led by the management, with Rector Caspersen at the forefront, and the other by the group of GUF teachers. The study of Center Nyt also reveals that AUC’s international engagement spanned several distinct regions. American contacts, which AUC had actively sought to establish early on, played a significant role in facilitating both faculty and student exchanges. At the opposite end of the spectrum were several connections with countries in the Eastern Bloc. Additionally, there was a strong commitment to international cooperation with Third-World countries, an initiative primarily driven by the teaching staff. The oldest form of international collaboration was with the Nordic neighbouring countries, including AUC’s involvement in the Nordic Summer University. Given the shared history of the Nordic region, it was a co-operation that was seen as quite natural and perhaps for the same reason was not highlighted as something special in relation to international issues.

However, attention to the agreements with the two American universities and, in general, the university centre’s co-operation and contact with the USA were the international issues that most often had the attention of Center Nyt during the early 1980s. A tallying of articles with an international focus in 1981 clearly illustrates the trend: In 1981, there were 18 articles with an international focus, seven of which had the USA as their theme in various guises. Articles about American researchers on guest teacher exchange, information about the possibility of family exchanges between the USA and Aalborg, and the organisation of the conferences and seminars on American issues are some telling examples. The other articles with an international focus ranged from research trips to North Korea and Cambridge, to AUC’s involvement in the International University, IUC in Dubrovnik and the Nordic Summer University and to linguistics fieldwork in Southern Sudan.

Europe or Europeanisation, on the other hand, did not feature much in either Center Nyt’s articles or in AUC’s yearbooks in the years prior to 1986, apart from a small section in an article on research opportunities or lack thereof, where the author commented on the Danish government’s lack of financial contribution to research compared to other EC countries; or when Olav Jull Sørensen briefly distinguish between Europe and other internationalisation activities (Center Nyt, 1:8 1981: 13; Center Nyt, 4:10 1983: 5). On the contrary, it was more a case of internationalisation from below, represented by AUC’s management and teaching staff respectively. The management’s engagement in CRE and Caspersen’s work to place the CRE seminar in Aalborg, shows his awareness of the importance of focusing on both American and European collaborations. Over time, as we shall see in the following, there was a shift in focus and AUC started, slowly but surely, turning towards Europe and European partners.

Europeanisation gains ground at AUC, 1986–1989

In September 1986, attentive readers of Center Nyt may have noticed a small advertisement for a book titled The Student Handbook: Higher education in the European Community. This comprehensive, 400-plus-page guide offered an in-depth introduction to the EC’s education and research programmes, valuable insights into education systems of member states, as well as a practical guidance on how to apply for various EC-initiatives (Center Nyt, 13:1 1986: 31). The advertisement for the Student Handbook, featured in Center Nyt, was one of several signs that Europe – and the broader process of Europeanisation – was gradually gaining a stronger foothold in AUC’s international activities. Another indication was the increasing number of announcements for various EC-founded scholarships and internships, supporting both student exchanges and research, regularly published under the ‘Announcements’ section at the end of each issue. As a whole, these developments signalled a gradual reorientation of AUC’s international engagement: from a broad, general approach to internationalisation towards a more defined emphasis on Europeanisation, even though, in 1986, it was still often referred to simply as internationalisation.

From 1986 onwards, the emphasis on and arguments for the internationalisation of education became increasingly prominent in Center Nyt – particularly in rector’s welcome speeches. Under the headline ‘AUC goes international’, Caspersen’s welcome speech from September 1986 highlighted the university’s effort to internationalise education (Center Nyt, 3:13 1986: 3):

In everyday life, you will meet foreign teachers and students, be they from the USA, Germany, Poland, or China. In addition to that, AUC has organised a number of study programmes and university agreements that give you the opportunity to spend from two weeks to one year abroad.

Opportunities to pursue an international dimension within an AUC education continued to expand in the following years. As noted above, several international study programmes were established.

By the late 1980s, AUC’s focus on the international arena no longer stood out, as all Danish universities by then had established extensive international contacts and agreements (Schmidt, 2012: 291). Both nationally and internationally, an increasing number of initiatives were introduced to promote academic collaboration and mobility. In 1986, the influential Minister of Education, Bertel Haarder, articulated the purpose of internationalisation as being to strengthen ‘opportunities for international co-operation of a scientific and academic nature, to strengthen export activities, and to strengthen Denmark’s position in international organisations’ (Hansen, 1997: 276).

The following year, in 1987, the Danish Ministry of Education allocated funding to educational institutions to support international activities through student scholarships and educational development. That same year, the EC launched the Erasmus programme (European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students), named after Erasmus of Rotterdam, the Dutch Renaissance humanist known for his travels across Europe to study, teach and exchange ideas. In the years preceding Erasmus, the EC had already initiated pilot schemes such as the Joint Study Programmes (1976–1986), which encouraged collaboration between European universities. However, Erasmus marked a turning point, kickstarting a comprehensive academic exchange system across Europe.

AUC, like other Danish universities, quickly became involved in various EC programmes, including COMETT (Community Programme on Education and Training for Technology) and Esprit (European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technology). From the outset, AUC received several EC grants to support and develop its collaborations with European universities (Aalborg Universitetscenter Beretning for 1986–1988, 1988: 26).

The increased focus on European issues was also reflected in Center Nyt. In September 1987, 2 months after the EC adopted the Erasmus programme, a feature article introduced readers to the various opportunities offered by the new EC initiative (Center Nyt, 13:1 1987: 20–22). The article was written by Anne Toboe, a member of AUC’s Rector’s Committee for Erasmus, who explained in detail how the application process worked and what steps were required at AUC to participate. Particularly important was the involvement of the boards of studies (studienævn), which were actively encouraged to engage in the process: ‘The boards of studies must consider whether there are courses within their field of study that can be replaced by courses at foreign universities, and whether there are courses at AUC that can be offered to students from foreign universities’ (Center Nyt, 13:1 1987: 22). One point repeatedly emphasised in the article was the availability of funding opportunities. The growing awareness of the EC as an important financial resource for educational collaboration was clear.

Gradually, the initiatives developed independently by AUC – such as the International Year – and the EC programmes like Erasmus and COMETT were partially integrated into a single administrative unit. However, it was not until early 1990 that an International Office was formally established. During the late 1980s, there was a sense that management did not have a comprehensive understanding of AUC’s various international involvements.

At the end of her article, Anne Toboe, who later became a key figure at AUC’s International Office, provided an overview of staff members serving on national committees focused on the internationalisation of education and research. She also encouraged other employees involved in similar activities to inform university management (Center Nyt, 1:13 1987: 22). This marked a clear indication that international engagement was gaining momentum, and that the university centre sought a more comprehensive understanding of and, importantly, better coordination of these efforts.

In 1988, the Europeanisation of AUC took a significant step forward. At the beginning of the autumn term, Rector Caspersen clearly shifted his focus towards Europe. In his welcome article for this new academic year, he devoted considerable attention to the forthcoming realisation of the European Single Market and positioned AUC’s Europeanisation efforts within this broader context (Center Nyt, 15:1 1988: 3). Most notably, he emphasised the need to prepare for the European Single Market and highlighted several of AUC’s initiatives aimed at adapting to the new European landscape. These included the establishment of NOVI, the North Jutland Science Park, as well as the expansion of the European Studies programme, which had been launched the previous year (Center Nyt, 15:1 1988: 3).

Two other developments in 1988 further illustrates how European issues were gaining prominence at AUC in 1988. First, the university decided to make ‘Europe’ the annual theme for the International Year in 1989 (Center Nyt, 2:15 1988: 10): ‘With the increasing internationalisation of our society, politics, production and way of life, it is increasingly necessary for students to gain professional insight into international/European developments’, wrote Staffan Zetterholm, one of the programme’s coordinators, in Center Nyt. Second, Aalborg was elected European City of the Year 1988 by the Council of Europe. In response, AUC marked the occasion by hosting a series of 12 lectures on ‘Denmark and its relations with the closest European neighbours to the north, east, south, and west’ (Center Nyt, 5:15 1988: 15).

Overall, Caspersen and AUC appeared more attuned than ever to the European dimension. September 1988 stood out as a distinctly ‘European month’ for the rector. Like many of his counterparts, Caspersen travelled to Bologna to participate in the 900th anniversary of the University of Bologna, where he was among the 388 university leaders to sign the Magna Charta Universitatum Europaeum, a two-page declaration drafted by the University of Bologna in collaboration with the European Rectors’ Conference (now the European University Association). The Magna Charta set out fundamental principles deemed essential for the operation of universities, including academic freedom and institutional autonomy. For this formal occasion, however, Caspersen had to borrow a ceremonial cape from a colleague at Copenhagen Business School, as such academic regalia did not (yet) exist at the reform-oriented university in North Jutland (Caspersen, 2025).

Although Europeanisation gained ground at AUC from around 1987 and onward, it was not embraced with unconditional enthusiasm or a sense of absolute ‘Europhoia’, as was the case at institutions like Ghent University, for example (Verbergt, 2026). On the contrary, there was a clear and consistent awareness at AUC that Europe should not become too inward-looking. This perspective was prominently articulated during AUC’s 15th anniversary celebrations in 1989. To mark the occasion, AUC published the anthology Towards the Future (Ad fremtidens veje), which rather than the usual reflection of the past, invited the contributors to look fifteen years ahead, and ‘to take stock of the future’ (Agger, 1989: 5).

The anthology’s 15 articles explored some of AUC’s core areas of focus – engineering education, women’s studies, and interdisciplinary research among them. Caspersen also contributed to the anthology, and unlike many of the other authors, he looked beyond national borders. In his essay, ‘Academic European – Academic World Citizen’, Caspersen reflected on what AUC might look like in 2004 as an internationally oriented Danish and European university – one firmly embedded in a broader global academic landscape (Caspersen, 1989).

Caspersen’s reflections primarily conveyed a hopeful vision for the continued internationalisation at both the student and researcher levels. Looking ahead, he anticipated that even more AUC students would spend one or more semesters abroad – either through internships with companies or organisations, or by studying at universities elsewhere in Europe and beyond. Importantly, Caspersen stressed that international exchange should be reciprocal: AUC needed to send students abroad but also to attract more international students to North Jutland. He further argued that the teaching staff should be shaped by the growing internationalisation of academia, through participation in exchange programmes and the short-term employment of foreign lecturers (Caspersen, 1989: 23).

According to Caspersen, international co-operation between universities offered numerous benefits, particularly through the new education and research programmes launched by the EC in the latter half of the 1980s. These initiatives aimed to promote technological, economic, social, and cultural development across EC members states: ‘We must learn to co-operate across the current borders, develop mobility between countries and learn more about each other, to understand each other better’, he wrote. However, Caspersen also recognised the potential limitations of Europeanisation. Although he largely emphasised European initiatives and collaborations, he warned against the risk of what he termed European provincialism – a scenario in which the EC would adopt ‘a too narrow and one-sided application of Erasmus and other EC programmes’ (Caspersen, 1989: 20). In his view, Europe’s research and education programmes should remain outward-looking and avoid becoming insular.

While Europeanisation had a positive and growing impact on AUC, Caspersen consistently maintained a clear distinction between internationalisation and Europeanisation. He cautioned that the increasing focus on European co-operation should not come at the expense of Nordic or extra-European engagement: ‘Here again, universities have a significant part of the responsibility to ensure that efforts to strengthen co-operation in Europe do not result in a narrow European provincialism’ (Center Nyt, 1:15 1988: 3). From its founding, AUC had prioritised both Nordic and broader international co-operation, although the European dimension was gaining ground, particularly considering the EC’s expanding role in education and research, Caspersen insisted that Nordic and extra-European partnerships should remain integral to the university’s international strategy.

The commitment was reflected in AUC’s attention to the launch of the NORDPLUS programme in 1989, initiated by the Nordic Council of Ministers to promote educational co-operation and mobility across the Nordic countries. Centre Nyt highlighted the programme with several calls for applications and funding opportunities. Strikingly, however, Center Nyt only briefly mentioned the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 (Center Nyt, 4:16 1989: 3), a dramatic event that signalled the beginning of a major political upheaval in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. While the silence in the publication is notable, the events were certainly discussed within the university. In the years that followed, Eastern Europe would increasingly become a focus in AUC’s expanding international engagement.

Although Caspersen consistently emphasised the importance of maintaining a global perspective and not losing sight of the world beyond Europe, he nevertheless described the late 1980s as a decisive European momentum for AUC (Årsberetning 1988–1990, 1990: 3):

European themes have been broadly integrated into our educational programmes. And finally, the number of students undertaking a period abroad – whether in companies or at universities – has tripled during this period. I would therefore not hesitate to call this period AUC’s European breakthrough.

As Caspersen noted, this represented a significant transformation: a clear shift in focus in which Europeanisation was no longer just emerging, it was accelerating rapidly. In other words, the dynamics of Europeanisation had firmly been established at AUC.

Developing Europeanisation, 1990–1994

By the early 1990s, it had become clear that Europeanisation was increasingly consolidated at AUC. Whether the topic was issues such as research funding, the establishment of new research centres, or faculty-level seminars, Europe was a recurrent theme across a wide range of initiatives and activities. Europe and European-related concerns had become a ubiquitous presence within the university centre. The three examples below illustrate the emergence of a new discourse on Europe and Europeanisation that began to take shape during this period. Unlike the 1980s, when AUC’s international outlook had largely focused on the United States, Third-World countries, and broader questions of internationalisation, the early 1990s saw Europe come to the forefront. This shift is clear in Center Nyt articles from 1991, where nearly every piece discussing internationalisation also references Europe – highlighting how deeply the European dimension had become embedded in the university’s approach to international engagement.

In 1990 AUC was awarded the prestigious chair of the EC’s Jean Monnet Programme. The main objective of this EC programme was to promote the integration of European studies at university level. Through a variety of initiatives, it sought to provide students with a strong European dimension in their academic training (Politiken, 1990: 6).

Three additional examples from Center Nyt further illustrate how firmly Europeanisation had put down roots at AUC in this period. In early spring of 1990, AUC organised an EC seminar, specifically addressing how AUC, in collaboration with companies in North Jutland, could work to secure a share of the DKK 65 billon expected to be earmarked for research and technological development under the EC’s 1990–1994 funding framework. According to Center Nyt, all 100 available seats were quickly booked, underscoring the high level of interest (Center Nyt, 7:16 1990: 18–19). The seminar’s agenda was clear: how could AUC and regional businesses navigate the complex EC bureaucracy and succeed in their applications?

Both Caspersen and Per Vinther, the head of the EC Information Office in Denmark, offered a clear response: the key was closer collaboration between AUC and local and regional companies, and across European institutions. Furthermore, Per Vinther emphasised the urgency of enhanced European co-operation and greater investment in research if Europe was to remain competitive with global powers such as the United States and Japan: (Center Nyt, 7:16 1990: 18–19):

We are falling behind in the competition with the USA and Japan and it’s not always easy to understand why. Europe has the knowledge to succeed, yet we are still struggling. This is because, in Europe, we are not good at – and do not have a tradition of – working together. And without this ability, it will be difficult to keep up with the two giants. Also note that these two countries spend significantly more money on research and development than is the case in Europe, even when we take the upcoming, improved EC program into account.

Another clear sign of the consolidation of Europeanisation at AUC can be seen in the activities of its research centres, several of which organised conferences and lecture series with a strong focus on Europe and on European themes. In June 1990, the newly established research centre FREIA – Feminist Research Centre In Aalborg – presented its forthcoming research activities, which included hosting the European conference ‘Changing Europe – differences and communities between women’, along with a series of guest lectures on European themes (Center Nyt, 9:16 1990: 6–7). The conference attracted 300 researchers from across Europe and aimed, as the sociologist Ann-Dorte Christensen from AUC told the daily Berlingske Tidende ‘to create closer contact with the European women’s studies community, both between East and West and North and South. Moreover, to gain greater insight into how women can make their mark in the development of the Europe of the future’ (Berlingske Tidende, 1991: 2; see also Weekendavisen, 1992: 15).

A third and final example from Center Nyt that exemplifies this ongoing trend of Europeanisation comes from the autumn 1993, with the introduction of the new doctoral programme in music therapy. The programme was both compared to and situated within the broader European context of the field. It was described as unique within Europe and was seen as a strategic step towards strengthening the growing international academic exchange among European music therapy programmes (Center Nyt, 3:21 1993: 39).

As in the two previous phases (1980–1985 and 1986–1989) international initiatives and activities at AUC continued to develop through close interaction between the management, still headed by Caspersen, and the internationally engaged faculty members. A key development in the early 1990s was the increasing institutionalisation of AUC’s international engagement, marked notably by the establishment of the International Office in 1990. This move was prompted in part by a request from members of the GUF group. Like at many other universities, the growing number of exchange agreements created a need for a centralised administrative body to support both students travelling abroad and those arriving at AUC. ‘The international work at AUC is constantly evolving. Over the past year, the number of students in International Studies has increased by 100 per cent, which means that over 100 internships and study programmes abroad must be found’, wrote the two GUF members Olav Jull Sørensen and Ulf Hedestof in their proposal to establish the new administrative unit (‘Oplæg til etablering af Det Internationale Kontor’).

There was a strong rationale for establishing institutional structures to oversee and coordinate exchange activities. In 1986, AUC sent 39 students abroad on exchange programmes. By 1990, that number had grown to 156, and by 1996, it had more than doubled again, reaching 395 students. While the number of students coming to Aalborg was lower, 28 students in 1990 and 106 in 1996, it too was increasing (‘Historiske nøgletal for 1974–2014’).

Caspersen’s new emphasis on the European dimension and its importance for the development and operation of the university centre, continued to be a central theme in his welcome articles during the beginning of the 1990s. His European focus was further reinforced by his role as a chairman of the Liaison Committee from 1991–1993, a coordinating body that facilitated cooperation between the European universities. The committee played a key role in aligning Danish research and higher education policy with the evolving European frameworks. Caspersen’s commitment to European co-operation continued when he was appointed chairman of the Danish EU Council in 1993 (Center Nyt, 1:21 1993: 23). His prominent roles in the EC/EU context in the first half of the 1990s underscore his dedication to European issues. As he had done in 1988, Caspersen once again raised the critical role of universities in preparing Denmark for the European Single Market, viewing them as central actors in this transition (Center Nyt, 1:19 1991: 5).

Another point Caspersen stressed was that in the field of education, AUC’s goal was to position itself ‘as one of the best universities in Europe’. He thereby clearly signalled the move towards the reorganisation of additional courses which would be taught partially in English, as well as the publication of English-language materials about AUC’s various courses. Such initiatives were among the efforts intended to strengthen AUC’s international dimension. In the autumn of 1992, Caspersen emphasised that several programmes had ‘taken new initiatives to incorporate European/international dimensions in their curricula’ (Center Nyt, 1:20 1992: 4). A final focal point was the growing importance of the EC for AUC’s research activities. Caspersen noted that an increasing number of AUC staff were participating in EC research bodies, both within Denmark and at the international level, and European conferences (Center Nyt, 1:20 1992: 4).

At the same time as international activities increased at AUC, there was also a growing political interest in the internationalisation and Europeanisation of universities. One key reason was that Danish politicians, particularly the conservative/liberal Schlüter government, sought to enhance competitiveness in research (Lamberty, 2022: 78–80). In an interview with Bertel Haarder, who had just been re-appointed as Minister of Education and Research, published in Center Nyt in January 1991, the minister confirmed the importance of the international dimension (Center Nyt, 5:18 1991: 4–5). Amidst these developments, the Danish rejection of the Treaty of Maastricht in the summer of 1992 plunged European co-operation into a crisis (Olesen, 2021: 2–5). Nevertheless, this setback did not alter the course of Europeanisation that Denmark and AUC had already embarked upon. Following the initial rejection, Denmark negotiated several exemptions (opt-outs) in what became known as the Edinburgh Agreement, which enabled a second referendum in May 1993, culminating in a majority ‘yes’ vote (Olesen, 2006: 48). After 1993, Danish governments took a more active role in EU initiatives, and the new active labour market policy became closely linked to education policy (Ehlers, 2013).

As shown, the European perspective became dominant in Center Nyt during the early 1990s, both in research and education, gradually superseding the broader international interests that had characterised AUC since the 1980s. In Center Nyt’s final issue in May 1994, parts of Caspersen’s newsletter to the university senate were reproduced. Under the heading ‘AUC speciality’, he once again emphasised the importance of the university centre’s efforts to internationalise its education programmes. He also stressed how this would prove significant in the long term, especially as the EU’s implementation of the Leonardo/Socrates programme for primary and secondary school students would become a reality with the Maastricht Treaty (Center Nyt, 9:21 1994: 17).

By the early 1990s, Europeanisation had firmly established itself at AUC, shaping both research and education. This marked a clear shift from the broader international outlook of the 1980s to a more Europe-centred agenda, reflected in increased participation in EC programmes, European-themed research initiatives, and curricular reforms emphasising the European dimension. Institutional developments, such as the creation of the International Office, supported this growing international engagement. Despite political challenges, including Denmark’s rejection of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, AUC remained committed to strengthening its European ties. As Caspersen emphasised, these efforts were crucial not only for AUC’s development but also for preparing Denmark to thrive within the evolving European framework. The European perspective had, by the mid-1990s, become deeply embedded in AUC’s identity and future strategy.

Concluding remarks

In the EC publication The history of European cooperation in education and training (Pépin, 2006), the authors identify 1985 as a pivotal year in the development of European co-operation with the introduction of a major reform on European education. In December that year the EC proposed an initiative for student mobility, the Erasmus programme (Pépin, 2006: 116), which kickstarted a comprehensive academic exchange programme in Europe. This also affected the university in Aalborg. However, as demonstrated in the analysis of the university magazine Center Nyt, the shift was not immediately visible at AUC. It wasn’t until a few years later, in 1988–1990, that signs of significant change became evident – most notably when Rector Caspersen referred to this moment as AUC’s ‘European breakthrough’.

The coverage of AUC’s Europeanisation in Center Nyt from 1980 to 1994 reveals that initiatives at AUC originated from two distinct levels: university management and faculty members. Both groups actively worked to strengthen the university centre’s international commitment, particularly in teaching, research, and collaboration with companies and organisations beyond the university. Initially, the geographical focus of these two groups was different: while management took a special interest towards the United States, the faculty members, especially the GUF group, oriented themselves more towards developing countries.

Denmark had been a member of the EC since 1973, and when AUC opened in 1974, there was naturally an awareness of the EC. Yet, the EC played almost no role in the university centre’s international initiatives prior to 1986. On the contrary, the focus of AUC’s early internationalisation was primarily on the United Stated and Third-World countries. Despite this early marginal role, EC and Europeanisation later had a significant impact on AUC, in particularly through the EC’s various exchange and research programmes.

AUC’s rector during this period, Sven Caspersen, played a key role in advancing internationalisation at the university centre. Caspersen was an active participant in international conferences and committees, positioning AUC within broader international networks. While he was by no means the only actor involved – groups such as the GUF also contributed – Caspersen emerged as a central, though not uncritical, proponent of internationalisation, particularly from the mid-1980s onward. He frequently returned to European themes in his public communication and institutional strategies. Notably, he secured prominent international agreements even before AUC’s formal Europeanisation efforts gained momentum, underlining his personal influence and the strategic importance he placed on international engagement. In other words: AUC embraced Europe and Europeanisation, but not in a way that limited its international profile, as the world, in Caspersen’s eyes, was and should be larger than just Europe. Europe was a part of the world, not its focus.

The study of Center Nyt has shed light on the process of Europeanisation at AUC and how it became an important force in the university centre’s international initiatives and activities. However, many more questions remain regarding Europeanisation that could deepen and nuance our understanding of the development at AUC. One question that arises is the extent to which differences exist between Danish universities – especially between the reform universities of the 1970s and the more traditional universities in Copenhagen and Aarhus; how did Europeanisation manifest itself and did it emerge during the same period as at AUC? Another important question concerns the students. Although they appear only occasionally in the articles of Center Nyt, their perspectives on the acceleration of Europeanisation remain largely unexplored. How did the Danish students relate to these developments? Did they express enthusiasm for the new possibilities, and were there critics on this European turn? A future study of students views would provide another important dimension in the understanding of the impact of Europeanisation of universities.