Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Globally, the past 10–15 years has seen universities experiencing increasing governmental reforms, including expectations for greater societal engagement. This places demands on the most senior university leaders to address and be seen to address these expectations. How do they situate themselves and negotiate their demanding role both inwardly and outwardly? We addressed this question in a case study of four rektors in four (of the eight) universities in Denmark. Using in-depth multi-mode data collection and analysis processes, we documented their lived experience negotiating the societal expectations of universities within the affordances and constraints of their roles in particular universities. Each was deeply committed to enhancing ‘their’ university’s societal engagement, externally representing the reality of ‘their’ university’s past, current and future visions of U-SE – against societal perception of the lack of such engagement. This involved outward, tête-à-tête, relationships with a range of societal actors, alongside downward, ‘leader-of-leaders’ distanced interaction throughout the institution. As the portal between the university and society, they were tracking, filtering, shaping the movement of knowledge between the two. The study contributes a richer conceptualisation of university leadership and university-societal engagement, alongside demonstrating the value of an analytic approach focused on examining individual and structural interactions.

Keywords

Rectors university-societal engagement Denmark case study individual-structural interaction

Context

Globally, universities have increasingly experienced growing policy demands and societal expectations to be engaged societal actors (Watermeyer 2015), which can create university-societal tensions. In Denmark, this tension is real: two decades of extensive political reforms, one of which radically redefined the nature of university-societal engagement (U-SE), requiring the university community, especially leaders, to ensure these demands were met. In this context, we undertook a case study of U-SE, examining how four rektors¹ each with unique biographies understood and negotiated their roles, situating their experiences in the 2023–24 nested national and institutional contexts of Denmark and the five (of eight) Danish universities that included the full spectrum of disciplines.

Our inquiry required a framework that examined the interaction between unique biographies and the geo-historical contexts in which they lived, thus avoiding over-privileging individual or structural explanations (e.g. Jiang et al. 2019). The empirically derived framework used (McAlpine and Amundsen 2018) provided an analytic tool distinguishing the different geo-historical nested structural contexts in which individuals are embedded. Specifically, the micro- (e.g. a department or faculty) is embedded within the meso-organisational (e.g. missions, regulations and regimes), with such organisations nested within macro national (e.g. national policies² and labour markets) and global (e.g. trends/ events) contexts. Within these nested contexts, individuals are seen as agentive: intentional to varying degree in negotiating towards their goals. They do this not only regarding current influences but also in response to their biographies, the historical times and places in which they have lived, with their pasts influencing present and future hopes and intentions. This approach, in line with Archer’s (2000) separability of structure and agency for analytic purposes, has earlier proved useful (Bengtsen and McAlpine 2022; McAlpine et al., 2024). By distinguishing the two, we can more easily examine the interactions that constitute the phenomenon (Selg 2020). Further, this stance enabled us to frame the rektors’ perceptions within the nested structural policies and practices, even if these were not operative for them.

Nested university leadership

Studies of university leadership are dispersed from management to higher education (HE) and across varied roles from PhD school co-ordinators, through PhD school heads, heads of departments, to deans and rektors. What is consistent across studies is the complexity of the notion of leadership, including that leaders cannot be conceived in the abstract. Leading is relational and social (e.g. Haslam and Reicher, 2016); individual motives for taking on such roles vary (Machovkova et al. (2023); and leaders through their sense of agency respond to the structural factors they consider affordances and constraints. Thus, they act in varied ways within their designated responsibilities. Further, studies highlight the importance of future-oriented inspiring AND day-to-day organising/ managing (e.g. Bolden et al., 2008). Thus, being a university leader is just as much a collective, structural practice as it is an individual, agentive one, which we have earlier conceptualised as ‘nested leadership’ (Bengtsen and McAlpine, 2023).

The nestedness of university leadership extends even beyond the institution. Regarding university-societal engagement (U-SE), many studies have noted this expectation over the past 20 years, with Heffernan et al. (2021) reporting empirical evidence that universities provide substantial social, cultural and economic benefit to their contexts, for instance, transforming lives, driving community economic growth. Looking specifically at Denmark, PhD humanities school heads experienced U-SE being actively taken up by PhD students in their research so aimed to support it (McAlpine et al., 2024). A sample of deans in Austria (Zinner et al., 2022) viewed U-SE positively, but based on the choices of individual researchers, with humanities’ researchers engaged in social progress activities, while scientists tended towards economic cooperation. Similarly, McAlpine et al. (under review) reported Danish humanities deans viewed their universities as already societally engaged in more varied, pluralistic ways than a strongly economically focused perspective suggests. Still, given leaders may focus on how individual researcher enact U-SE, they may not recognise, or try to change, the internal constraints limiting U-SE (US medical deans in Martinez et al. (2023)).

The findings from Denmark are reflected also in four international studies about rektors while highlighting unique features of this leadership role: Heffernan et al. (2021); Bosetti and Walker (2010); Badillo-Vega and Buendia-Espinosa (2022); Liu et al. (2020). All four reported national policy demands, for instance, meeting societal needs, addressing governance structures. Generally, these rektors held a broader view of U-SE than promoted in these policies, with Heffernan et al. (2021) and Bosetti and Walker (2010) differentiating immediate more visible manifestations, alongside long-term less apparent contributions. They also noted the context-embeddedness of universities, with rektors recognising local through national spheres of U-SE influence. They valued external engagement to better understand societal demands, gain greater legitimacy and develop strategic plans, in this way bridging external policies and internal organisation. Liu et al. (2020),³ Bosetti and Walker (2010) and Badillo-Vega and Buendia-Espinosa (2022) explored the internal context and challenges. Possible tension between vertical-organisational and horizontal-disciplinary structures meant rektors needed to use effective communication strategies: (a) downwards to coordinate structures to build trust in a context in which they could not tell people what to do, and (b) upwards through intelligence gathering to catch tensions/ resistance. Overall, they aimed to raise U-SE aspirations, while persuading reluctant academics who guarded their traditional roles.

A fifth study, Badillo-Vega et al. (2021), a systematic review (1969–2018), in which anglosphere countries predominated, reflected these findings. They reported few studies integrated national, organisational and individual perspectives – recommending future studies do so. Our own literature review supported this argument: individual perspectives were described against a broad characterisation of national (and institutional) contexts, rather than separate analyses of the three perspectives before integrating them – something we have done in this study.

Research question

How do rektors enact (understand, practice, and navigate/ negotiate) the challenges of their responsibilities particularly within ‘their’ university’s U-SE? What ideas of ‘the university’ underpin their thinking?

Methodology

Approach

Our team of four researchers, bringing different areas of expertise, all value robust team-based research processes (Houston et al., 2010), including integrating different data sources and in-depth data analysis. We first conducted a critical review of policy documents to understand the macro- and meso-contexts⁴; then drew on that work to develop biographical profiles of individuals’ work experience before conducting and analysing in-depth interviews: our intent to generate overall design coherence from data collection through analysis to interpretation.

Policy

Document collection

To empirically situate each rektor’s experience within their particular macro-meso-contexts, we collected national and institutional policy documents (national N = 54, institutional N = 108, total N = 162) primarily published in English – Danish ones were translated. The national ones were found on Ministry and Danish parliamentary websites, and the institutional ones on university websites and rektors’ offices (strategies, annual reports, research policies, and statutorily required ‘Strategic Framework Agreements’ with the Ministry).

Document analysis

A policy ontology-informed (Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024a; Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024b) approach to critical policy content analysis (Krippendorf, 2004) to map the historical and contemporary national policy context and trajectory of each university. The results informed our interpretation of the macro- and meso-contexts.

Individual experience

Once Aarhus University approved the study, we contacted the rektors from the five institutions via email to participate. The four agreeing signed consent forms before the interviews. Two requested and were sent the interview questions ahead of time.

Developing protocols and profiles

The semi-structured interview was informed by a literature review and the policy analysis described above. The two members conducting the interviews developed the protocol with the two others providing feedback. Then, to ensure a sense of each interviewee’s unique trajectory, the two interviewers created three profiles for each interviewee from online data:

• Personal: career trajectory: educational/ disciplinary background, academic/ administrative professional roles, board memberships, public recognitions.

• Institutional for current university: organisational charts, institutional mission, values, recent and future-looking strategies.

• Public: press articles, debates, etc.; academic publications relevant to U-SE and leadership.

Before each interview (about 60 minutes, recorded in English over Zoom), the two interviewers discussed the three profiles, and created pre-interview memos of their impressions. The audio files were auto-transcribed via Word, manually corrected, with Danish phrases double-checked by the Danish speaker.

Within 24 hours after each interview, the two discussed their immediate responses, incorporating these impressions with interview notes into post-interview memos (Saldana 2015). The two sets of memos expanded understanding beyond the transcripts for the third team member: the experience of communication with the interviewees (the speaker-listener frame) with the pre- and post-interpretation more distanced (Ricoeur 1976).

Analysis

We began with an initial discussion as to what we tentatively ‘saw’ and how to approach our joint analysis. Then, we all read through the transcripts at least two times in seeking emergent themes, and regularly discussed issues and interesting insights we had to generate an integrative interpretation. One used a qualitative analysis software program and two analysed manually on printed or digital copies of the transcripts. Figure 1 illustrates the phases in the process (McAlpine et al. under review).

Figure 1.

Our process.

One, using a narrative approach (Riessman 2008), analysed each leader independently before reviewing coding across all transcripts to ensure consistency of coding. For each leader: (a) all of an individual’s documents were read for a sense of the lived experience, and a brief case memo created; (b) then, larger chunks of text representing emergent themes were coded; (c) after a day or two, the transcript was reread to assess previous coding and modify as needed.

The second used a hybrid inductive/deductive approach (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006) – with some inductive/emergent codes classified either as inductive themes or as deductive thematic codes regarding the research question. The pre- and post-memos provided the context for the individual and the institution in each case, enabling reflection on any affective, immediate responses in light of the more systematic transcript analysis. As new codes emerged and were characterised, earlier transcripts were reviewed to ensure consistent analysis across the transcripts. This included reviewing the codes and rearranging the themes in an overview of the four.

The third building on the three-way discussion and memos developed his interpretation in hermeneutic loops, that is edited in each round of discussion. After printing the transcripts, he applied a phenomenological-hermeneutical analysis (Brummett 2019): initially a close-reading and then open coding line-by-line through bracketing and suspending any meta-narrative. Then, the transcripts were read with a more ‘closed’ (but still phenomenological) approach, aiming to identify themes and categories across initial codes. Last, he read hermeneutically regarding the research questions to develop a meta-narrative of the emerging interpretation (i.e. active preconceptions rather than bracketed/suspended perspective).

Limitations

Case-based studies are designed to capture the specificity of the case to sensitise other researchers (and practitioners who read the studies) to interesting patterns and unique phenomena when undertaking future studies around similar issues. Always a challenge in small case studies is a concern to fully protect participant identity. Thus, we have (a) used gender-neutral names, (b) provided information about the five universities with humanities faculties, and (c) not linked specific statements between leaders and their universities, though they did indeed refer to specific characteristics of ‘their’ university – for instance, influence of their location, size, origins/ missions when describing their U-SE work. The robustness of our team-based processes (Houston et al., 2010) provides assurance as to our interpretations.

Results: External ‘tête-à-tête’ intimacy and internal distanced U-SE relationships

We describe the macro-Danish policy context (in particular, two pertinent reforms); and then characterise the five university meso-contexts before the rektors’ views, to emphasise the nestedness of their experiences – and the interactions.

Danish policy context

Danish governments, like national governments elsewhere, want universities to address the ‘global knowledge economy’ (Wright et al., 2019), resulting in a range of HE and research policy ‘reforms’ (Bolden et al., 2008). Of particular importance regarding U-SE was the 2003 ‘Universities Law’. This framed U-SE as ‘contribut [ing] to promoting growth, prosperity and the development of society’ (Folketinget 2019, §2.3). Notably, what counts as ‘surrounding society’ (in Danish, ‘omgivende samfund’) is limited to large companies in the private sector, private research-funding foundations (e.g. The Velux Foundations, Carlsberg Foundation), non-research HE colleges, and other state organisations (i.e. the Ministry). This is much more constrained than what most individuals would imagine, so this law (p)re-forms the world in a narrower mode than the full diversity of existing possibilities (Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024a, Gibson and Bengtsen, 2024b), which would include individuals/ citizens; civil society; charities; cultural entities (e.g. music and art academies, theatres); media; public organisations (e.g. art, design, archaeology, history museums); libraries (both public and research); even small and medium private enterprises (e.g. publishers, software-developers, consultancies).

As in many EU countries (De Boer et al., 2010), the government has also ‘reformed’ governance, specifically, the mandate of supervisory boards, their role in the selection of rektors, with the government retaining overall power. The Universities Law §§10–13 (Folketinget 2019) states:

The board is the university's supreme authority. The board safeguards the university's interests as an educational and research institution and determines the guidelines for its organisation, long-term activities and development. … The board lays down the university's statutes and amendments thereto. The Minister approves the university's statutes.

Further, ‘If the board fails to comply with orders from the Minister to rectify any unlawful acts, the Minister may order the board to resign with a view to appointing a new board’. As to board composition:

External members and members representing the university’s academic staff, including PhD students with university contracts, the technical and administrative staff and the students …the majority of its members [must be] external members …appointed in their personal capacity. …must have experience in management, organisation and finance, including assessment of budgets and financial statements' (italics added)

Additionally, ‘the board appoints and dismisses the rector and appoints and dismisses the university’s remaining senior management on recommendation from the rector’. The rektor’s responsibilities are telegraphically denoted: ‘The …day-to-day management is handled by the rector within the framework established by the board. The rest of the management undertake their assignments by authorisation from the rector’. Finally, as regards U-SE, the Law states: ‘The rector must approve all external collaboration binding the university’.

The university contexts

The five universities⁵ vary in their: (a) histories of development; (b) location; (c) size; and (d) institutional mission (Table 1). They range from traditional internationally attuned to more regionally attuned universities. All extensively describe their commitment to U-SE (see italicised text under mission) through research. In addition, the more traditional universities, Copenhagen and Aarhus also specifically reference graduates of their programmes. The more recent Roskilde, Aalborg and Southern Denmark, built around societally engaged pedagogies, do not name graduates, perhaps due to their national (global) reputation for these stances.

Table 1.

Comparison of universities (from first to latest).

Institution, established	Geographical location/ type	# students (October 1, 2023)	Mission/ strategy/ vision (excerpts, edited)
Copenhagen, 1479	Internationally attuned, global identity; ancient, created by monarchy	39,096	UCPH (University of Copenhagen) aims to create more benefit for more people. …To generate new knowledge, inform more people and contribute to welfare, prosperity and a sustainable society. UCPH will advance knowledge and provide solutions in collaboration with the surrounding world
			World-leading, UCPH has a multiplicity of disciplines, offering rich opportunities for specialisation and research of the highest quality. This, UCPH’s foundation, is essential for realising short and long term ambitions
			UCPH creates value by doing research and educating graduates at the highest international level. Curiosity-driven research grounded in academic freedom provides the foundation for basic, applied research, and mission-driven research. Our graduates, PhDs and postdocs contribute to the education of society, bringing new knowledge and research-based working methods to the labour market and business community
			The transition to sustainability …geopolitical situation …digital transformation of society – These complex challenges call for critical thinking and knowledge-based solutions. We are committed to contributing to the development of society through research, education and innovation
Aarhus, 1928	Regionally attuned; result of 150+ years of local/ Jutland economic and cultural development efforts	31,607	AU’s (Aarhus University) vision is to be a research-intensive university that aspires to the highest international quality and excels in creating value through knowledge, new insights and collaboration, in addition to facilitating connections between Denmark and the world. AU’s vision for 2025 will be realised through a focus on seven strategic commitments
			• Generating knowledge and research breakthroughs through free, independent research of the highest international quality
			• Research-based degree programmes of the highest international quality
			• Performing impartial public sector consultancy services of the highest international quality
			• Encouraging the university’s students, graduates and researchers to bring their knowledge into play in order to shape the society of the future
			• Contributing to international collaboration, global engagement and the solution of major societal challenges through interdisciplinary research collaboration
			• Generating innovation in established public and private sector companies and start-ups through collaboration, both internally and with external partners
			• Intensifying the exchange of talents and knowledge, locally, nationally and globally
Southern Denmark, 1966	Regionally attuned, result of regional economic development efforts and post-WWII massification; other institutes and university colleges merged over time	19,117	We create value for and with society and shape the future through high quality, talented people and outstanding environments
			We want to create value for and with society: USD (University of Southern Denmark) is here to solve major societal challenges. Whether our contributions are research-based knowledge, new solutions, learning or education, they must make a positive difference to society and the future. We do this by cultivating talent and the best environments: We must deliver research, education programmes and collaborations of the highest international quality. Value creation is inextricably linked to high quality
			Why we must ensure the highest international quality: It is crucial that USD is able to recruit talented people and create outstanding environments [to] ensure consistently high quality in all our activities –we can only do that with the right people [who] are the foundation of our success
Roskilde, 1972	In capital, but regionally attuned (note name); result of student movements, discontent, post-WWII massification: Recognised for its pedagogy problem-oriented, project-based learning	6515	RU (Roskilde University) moves society forward through cutting-edge interdisciplinary research, teaching and learning
			RU’s primary objective is to contribute to experimental, innovative forms of research, learning and problem-solving that contribute to society’s development
			We think ahead - and shape the future: RU was originally established in order to challenge academic traditions and to experiment with new ways to create and acquire knowledge. At RU we cultivate a project and problem oriented approach to knowledge creation, because we believe that the most relevant results are obtained by solving real problems in collaboration with others. We employ an interdisciplinary approach because no major problems are ever resolved on the basis of any single academic discipline alone. We also cultivate transparency, because we passionately believe that participation and knowledge-sharing are prerequisites for freedom of thought, democracy, tolerance and development
			RU will be a European front-runner in interdisciplinary knowledge creation that is locally embedded and globally connected, and will be known for its contribution to research-based sustainable change
Aalborg, 1974	Regionally attuned, result of local/ north Jutland economic development efforts and post-WWII massification, recognised for its pedagogy, problem-based learning	17, 829	Our extensive expertise, intensive inter-disciplinarity and proactive commitment to society give us unique opportunities to work on complex challenges. In conjunction with the world around us, we define and take part in missions that help solve those challenges. These missions must be the driving force behind our work. In short, AAU (Aalborg University) is a mission-oriented university
Aalborg, 1974		17, 829	With its mission-oriented approach, Aalborg University will set a clear direction and create value through new knowledge about - and for - the world. Through high quality in our core activities, we will help create solutions to complex societal challenges regionally, nationally and globally

The rektors’ experience

Five intertwining themes or strands emerged from our analysis: (a) long-term commitment to leadership; (b) distinct, lonely position; (c) boundary existence (internal distanced and external close relationships); (d) unquestioned belief in ‘their’ university’s U-SE; and (e) prickly political governance tensions. To ground the themes, we provide transcript excerpts so individual variation as well as similarity is evident. The themes build on each other, intertwining and merging to make a whole, which we explore fully in the discussion.

Past experience: ‘Fall [ing] into leading’

The rektors had all graduated with PhDs (3 sciences, 1 humanities) 30 years ago or earlier, and had regularly experienced institutional leadership roles since then (Liu et al., 2020). They had longstanding experience within their own institutions, local and regional arenas – and were experienced rektors. The excerpts below provide a sense of their respective journeys towards rector-ship.

ALEX	DYLAN	KIM	RORY
Quite early in my career …I got my first position as a head of xx …then …I became the first head of … After a few years …what came to me …I had some ideas and some ways of conducting leadership …in a way that …that I could probably make a greater impact by pursuing such a career than I did as a researcher	[Shortly after starting my first academic post], a more senior academic told me: You are going to be the next head of ...because it’s your turn …So I think I’m driven towards leadership because I think it’s very interesting to participate, to look at the long lines, to make better education, better conditions for our work. … I never chose to be a leader	I’m a pretty common sight within academia. It was never planned. … basically, the dean …one day stood in my doorway …said: ‘Listen …you notified me …there was a serious problem in XXX …the way to correct that is to place you as the vice director’. So that’s basically how it how it began. And then I realised that this was also fun, and …I have enjoyed all the positions I have had at this wonderful university	The day after I graduated …I was already made responsible for somebody else’s work. …interaction where you have the role to define in part the job of others or to at least guide other persons. And …the right to say yes and no. …this [leadership] grew very quickly from one person to many persons …so it just was always there. …from the beginning [and] grew on me

As can be seen, they all appeared to ‘fall into leading’ (becoming leaders without intent or premeditation), though finding it potentially fruitful for different reasons: the potential for greater impact, enhancing education and work, enjoyment, ‘growing on me’ (Machovkova et al., 2023). So, they continued to accept as well as seek out such positions, clearly committed to supporting and enhancing their universities’ own missions, since never at any point did they express concerns about the direction of travel of their universities.

Distinct, lonely position: ‘For’ but ‘not of’ the university

Recall the national law gave them overall responsibility for the ‘university’s day-to-day management’ which they could ‘authorise’ to others. As Rory said: ‘If I read the …“rektor’s instruction” as I get it from the board …my leader, it basically says that that I’m responsible for everything and I can delegate it to everybody. And that’s …what I do. So, this delegation thing is important’. Thus, it was not surprising that that they experienced isolation, distance, something not reported in prior studies. Here they describe in different ways the distinctness of the position: ensuring decisions are executed, educating others, setting aside their discipline.

ALEX	DYLAN	KIM	RORY
One quality [of] this role] is the ability to execute on decisions …which I don’t think [universities] are particularly strong at to be honest…. [I make] …action plans [as] …you force the organisation …[the leaders below] to come back and …show …the decisions made …go all the way top down …into the organisation	And it is a difficult, difficult balance …also due to the University Act that we have. We are leading the organisation, and we are carrying the responsibility quite heavily. But how do we prepare our academic council, or the people in the study boards, or [whoever], for taking the role of their leadership?	By far most of the people I know at the university, they love their subject, and think it is the most interesting things on the planet. [But] …you cannot take that attitude as a leader, because you need to realise that there’s a lot of people …[so] a lot of different subjects, and they all have their own identity and their own pride in their own subject	Now I’m a leader of leader-leaders. …The activity that I lead is led by others who lead others. …That term …makes it obviously very distant. …The interesting thing of becoming rector, [the] dean is the superior academic within an area of science or research or academia. …the rector is just the head of the deans

This ‘power over’ carries with it a range of emotional undertones: for instance, Kim both ‘great fun’ but ‘have humanity’; Dylan ‘not being about to trust’; Rory, the need to ‘extract the joy’. Rory expanded on the solitary challenges of the responsibility. S/he must:

Manag[e] the least imperfect compromises of wicked problems - which, of course, is the essence of top leadership. Because in …a university where everyone …[is] highly capable of managing most of their own work in their own …spheres, …only the most unsolvable of the unsolvable problems reaches me. That means …they really stink …there are no good solutions. You just have to decide …do I want to try to find a compromise? Or who do I want to …make enemies with today? That's …because it's usually these hard conflicts where you cannot please everyone. And …actually, there are no obviously good solutions. (Rory)

Such a demand implies holding a provisional, responsive, open, vigilant stance to emerging conditions both internally and externally – aiming internally to address the perceived weaknesses in the university to reduce them and externally negotiate and mitigate negative influences.

Given this distanced leadership, they characterised their roles as ‘facilitator’ (Dylan), ‘diplomat’ (Rory), ‘foreign policy minister’ (Alex). As Alex said:

To make decisions …to understand the pulse of the organisation, you have to allow yourself to interact with your organisation …to understand what are the co-workers worried about right now? …What's really the governing interest in the individual department? What worries the researchers in relation to teaching, to research, to innovation? What worries the students?

Being effective at this internal dispersed distance-based leading called for a comprehensive communication stance (Badillo-Vega and Buendia-Espinosa 2022):

(a) Current knowledge of the weaknesses, flaws, and challenges of the university ‘reality’ (as well as the pluses) to bring the university to a better version of itself, for instance, ‘We [universities] also show …sometimes …[that] we’re better than the rest of society. That’s very bad’. (Dylan)

(b) Good communication skills, including listening carefully to others (Dylan, Kim)

(c) Effective communication structures as messages move through successive embedded leadership structures both downward and upward. Examples include the creation of ‘overlapping teams’ (Kim) and working ‘immensely with [in] the organisation …developing management at all levels’ Alex.

Another feature of isolation is they were no longer ‘of’ the university, actually engaged in legitimate academic work, as Rory and Kim noted above (though they draw on their general research skills).

And, unfortunately, while building others’ trust through good down and up communication, ‘when you are the top leader, basically, you cannot trust anybody. That’s the problem about being number one in an institution. …I think everybody who is number one knows that enormous difference’ (Dylan). So, the internal role of rektor was qualitatively different from other university leadership roles. At this point their closest colleagues were other rektors (national and international), individuals with whom they could openly discuss issues, develop ‘power with’, though nationally there was also some competitiveness.

Janus-faced boundary existence: Enacting ‘their’ university

Existing at the institutional boundary, they gained clear sight and insights inwards and outwards – of both the perception (true and false) of the university by society and of the internal ‘reality’, including challenges and weaknesses. It was this distance between the perception and the reality which underlay much of their work around U-SE. While the external-internal dimension has been previously reported, the perception-reality dimension has not.

This work to negotiate the perception-reality gap incorporates both a general idea of ‘the’ university – what it is, what it ought to be – and a particular idea specific to ‘their’ institution. The general idea of the university can offer internal possibilities for their university (see Dylan and Rory below) or externally, the collective of Danish universities (see Alex and Kim). So, in speaking of Danish universities in the face of reforms, Dylan said: [We need to] ‘explain… to everybody – we’re fighting, we’re working for Danish universities; we’re working for the idea of a university’. Thus, general and particular ideas of the university (e)merge as each describes U-SE strategy, decision-making and relationships.

ALEX	DYLAN	KIM	RORY
As a university, we try to be a university relevant to society. …That means …we have a lot of research which is applied. …[And] we have a lot of fundamental research, because [it] …is extremely important for society. And here …we ….as rektors in the rektors’ conference need to do more to convince the politicians that they should also protect fundamental science	We’re not made for ranking. We’re made for collaboration, and not trying to individualise learning and success and quality assurance also… And I think we’re trying to discuss; we’re really trying to build up our knowledge about… our own role as a university.	The perception amongst most of society is …we do not live up to our societal contract… that is …the biggest challenge ...today …the perception of us is rather negative amongst a major part of at least …the political system, but also a major part of the population which sees us as the elite. … Our obligation …to support and strengthen …this wonderful society we are part of …is difficult when people have this rather negative perception of us	I have, from day one …tried to develop structures, …value sets, and …cultures towards …this notion of the [collective] …to not only describe to ourselves why we’re together, but …also …show… it makes sense …we are together. …bringing all the disciplines together is not just an abstraction, but …to create something together …more important than what we could create individually as faculties or department or researchers

While their internal relations were distanced, filtered through successive layers, externally the rektors enacted and brought to life ‘their’ university within ideas of the university, engaging personally, often in tête-à-têtes.⁶ They characterised a spectrum of dimensions of this existence: from a specified responsibility to a strategic potential to a personally held value.

ALEX	DYLAN	KIM	RORY
[My] responsibility is to take on the interaction and engagement with society at large, with the international society, and …try to influence the politicians …meeting with both individual politicians and groups in government, and groups in Danish industry, trade unions, whoever can have an interest or take an interest in the development of the university	But the tension is there. And the tension is there because of the negative look …that we do experience from certain politicians. And even from some politicians from whom we could expect something else. …What I have done as …rektor is very much to persuade through quality assurance work and hard quality development work… But also cleaning up some things at this university …to be able to have a stronger voice	I have a personal relation to all the mayors of the different municipalities. They are important stakeholders for us. … Even in Copenhagen, I have …meetings with the… top mayor. …So, you have all these chances of having an informal …dialogue … and say what he should be aware of. Because that’s also a way to influence his good friends at Kristiansborg (national government)	I’m not to decide if …the politicians should say ABC or D – I advise them and … they are free to make the decisions they make. I’m always an independent, honest broker in my relationship with decision-makers. [Still] …you need to listen, and …consider if this gives room for changes. …[And] ‘Do I trust that person?’ …not always something you can guarantee, but …can work on …and …be open. …clearly …signal …I would like …input from you

Being (at) the portal between their institutions and surrounding societal contexts, the rektors are a central pivot (Badillo-Vega et al., 2021), tracking, filtering, shaping inward and outward movement of ideas, people, activities. In doing this, they aimed to demonstrate their university’s embeddedness within, as well as commitment to, society. Rory summarised the importance of this succinctly: ‘Actually, being aware of the situation, what’s going on, inside and outside, and being able to decide which situation, or whatever, do we have to work on, to address, to mitigate, to develop processes around, is insanely important’. This portal role of the rektor in leading the university helps to explain not only what is distinct in university leadership, but also how university leadership is enacted and why.

‘Their’ university’s unquestioned U-SE: Societal actors as collaborators and allies

As noted in previous studies, (Badillo-Vega et al., 2021), university rektors are expected to be outward-facing. What we found is that all four were deeply committed to and unquestioningly argued for ‘their’ own university’s past and present active U-SE, again from different perspectives.

ALEX	DYLAN	KIM	RORY
As a university, we try to be …relevant to society …[which means] we have a lot of research which is applied research. But …[also] a lot of fundamental research, because [it] is extremely important for society. …I believe we (the rektors) need to do more to convince the politicians …they should also protect fundamental science [as] …in [the] long-term, it proves extremely relevant to … the development of the society	Institutions for …youth education, the kommuner …carrying a lot of development in the regions and in the country …we collaborate a lot with them. We have contracts of collaboration with communalities in the region and …some companies …to see if we can join forces …[to] persuade politicians …to understand us better. And, of course, Danish Industry and Danish Erhverv	One of the reasons …[we put] emphasis on the collaboration part of our activities …is simply to show society very directly that, ‘Gee, we also deliver here on with this aspect’ [since] …at the end of the day, we need somebody outside university stand up saying, ‘Oh my, the university is of great value for us’. It’s not good enough that we do it ourselves. … Because …You risk that it becomes counterproductive	I actually think …interaction with stakeholders in society …has only grown over the last 30-plus years. So …this …will …invite society more into the university. Of course …there will still be… research which will be completely distant …[despite] more approaches …[for] those who would like to interact. We [are] already …using our research to try to understand phenomena in real time, and … at a scale …completely unimaginable in the past

These excerpts suggest the challenges in communicating their message. As Rory said: ‘We are too inward-looking [so] …end up punching below our weight’ (Rory).

Their intent was not only to educate other societal actors, but hope through these interactions and collaborations to develop allies and promoters who were experientially convinced of the reality of their institution’s U-SE. This meant investing in close personal ongoing relationships: Kim tells the deans to ‘go out and meet people …listen …build trust’. Alex elaborated: ‘It all comes down to …establish [ing] good personal relations …a good mutual understanding. …It’s not something you can do in a short period of time …to build trust in one another’. These tête-à-tête interactions, often over coffee (ad hoc and informal), with short briefing papers contrasted considerably with their distanced internal relationships – in addition to cross-university cohesion described above by Dylan.

Internally, Alex also aimed to educate the board, an inward-outward university structure by government law. Given its makeup, it is potentially powerful in successfully convincing society:

[It is] important, for the board to understand the university …boundary conditions as a university …[as] they have …relations in industry, …the public …[and] political sector, so they need to be ambassadors for the university …wherever they go. …[So] it's our responsibility to equip them with the knowledge …they can …exercise when they interact in the greater society, both national and international.

Rory notes another internal-external structure, an advisory panel of external representatives or potential employers from public and private organisations that can inform universities on labour market needs:

The repræsentantskab …from the aftagerpaneler in the organisation …with the representatives from stakeholders outside. And they are really high-quality stakeholders. …And they give extremely good advice on stuff I put before them in terms of …interpreting the situation and the opportunities or challenges of the university in the context of the situation outside.

While only one rektor was a humanist, they all recognise that some disciplinary clusters have more difficulty in being societally recognised for U-SE. They strongly defended the humanities (and social sciences) against the troubling notion held by politicians of humanities’ lack of value – a feature of the difference between the reality and the perception. As Kim noted:

I think we have had some success [convincing] politicians. …I've heard several …say, “Okay …the time has probably come that we should not just …blame everything on humanities. We need to do something else.” So I feel that the ship is beginning to turn, but it's a little bit like a super freighter …it takes time.

They were in accord as to the value of the humanities: as an essential contribution to societal challenges, to holistic understanding of problems, of each other, of conflict, of what really happens between people, between people and society, and simply for a ‘happy and meaningful life’ (Kim).

Notably, while research is often the focus of policy U-SE, all four talked clearly about the students/ the graduates as an added value, a form of continuous U-SE (in and out), noting what education should do. As Rory said:

We are …really creating impact [when]… the students …can go out and …have a great life, ideally, but also …create value beyond themselves, in whatever they …do in the rest of their life. …And that's, of course, something we should be extremely cognizant of when we invite them in.

Dylan linked this to good educational design:

It means …they develop as human beings, and …develop skills and competences and knowledge that is relevant, and …become strong experts and strong persons, strong citizens, because they get engaged in an education that is well thought and well planned. So good education is for the students.

Overall, given that ‘people have negative perceptions of us’ (Kim), the rektors worked to convince societal actors of their university’s already deep and expanding investment in U-SE, both to educate and to gain allies.

‘Prickly’ political governance tensions

This investment could though be sidetracked by ‘these reforms …one major reform every year, each second year’ (Kim). Thus, politicians Sand the government were viewed apart given the need for them to minimise the negative effects of these decisions.

ALEX	RORY	KIM	DYLAN
We have to mitigate, in the best way, all the cons of this reform. …[Also], we discuss … [the distribution of] the basic research budget among universities: Is the metric they use right now …a fair way of distributing it? Do we from this university believe that this is a fair way? Do we believe that we get our …fair share?	I think with the last… crazy education reform. Maybe they …at least realise that now the level of craziness has peaked. And maybe they shouldn’t do much more. …So maybe …we can start a much more important discussion about the actual value of universities to society	Whenever you …try to inform [politicians], …they get …this reptile look …[and] say, “…Of course, you graduate talented people [and] do research.” But that’s not enough. We need more from you. …It was very easy for [them given] …no real opposition in …the population. …We don’t really have any political friends …and this is not sustainable	Leaders …do things that come from the outside …from the politicians, and …we are weak leaders in Denmark, because we have a government that wants to control us. And the tension is there because of the negative ...we …experience from certain politicians. And even from some politicians from which we could expect something else

This tension appeared very visceral, concrete; they were after all responsible for all aspects of their university, so finances were important both for research and education. All government pronouncements had the potential for damage, particularly in difficult socio-economic times. Further, the governmental discourse was not representative of the multiple ways in which value could be assessed, particularly humanities (and social sciences). As Dylan noted: ‘We’ve shown – because we’ve had to show that …it “pays off,” because that’s the language that is understood today’. And Kim commented: ‘Engineering in the perception of politicians and of society is important today. …But we need the politicians to respect all the other subjects which also give a lot to society of great value’.

Expanding our understanding of leading universities in society

How did rektors in Danish universities enact their role both inwardly and outwardly, especially regarding U-SE? There is much in our results that supports earlier reports. The unique nature of the findings lie in our focus on geo-historical and biographical interactions.

One example of these interactions in the personal-institutional context is that the rektor, effectively, becomes the university, embodying it in a way. In effect, this enactment of the idea of ‘their’ university incorporated, or nested, their own biographies within ‘their’ university’s origins and identity and manifestations of U-SE. Their view of U-SE in ‘their’ university encompassed a broad framing incorporating both carefully designed education programmes to prepare graduates to be active contributors to society, and institutionally driven research around pressing societal problems, such as sustainability. Further, it encompassed all disciplinary clusters.

Another example of these interactions in the institutional-societal context is that the rektor is the portal for inward and outward movement of ideas, people, and activities in ‘their’ geo-historically embedded university; this movement can be more or less regionally, nationally and/or internationally attuned. This means tracking, filtering, shaping information and knowledge both internally and externally to educate and promote change. (See Figure 2.) Internally rektors re-presented societal perceptions of their U-SE as well as potential U-SE opportunities. Given their relations here were distanced, they made careful use of their downward and upward ‘power over’ to instill a shared, powerful vision of the collective ‘reality’ of U-SE in ‘their’ institution, one to expand on in the future. Knowing the internal reality, including weaknesses and challenges, they also used strategy and decision-making to bring to life a better version of ‘their’ university. Externally, to counter societal perceptions, they re-presented ‘their’ university’s unique U-SE, with the general idea of the university. They did this through multiple, personal relationships to develop collaborations (‘power through’) that demonstrated soft economic and social power, hoping that through such alliances they might mitigate the worst features of governmental demands. Within the university institution-to-institution context, they also forged relationships with other rektors, nationally and internationally, for ‘power with’ to enhance their legitimacy.

Figure 2.

Rektors’ experiential positioning/navigating nested contexts.

These findings resulted from our framing of the study around the interplay of individual, institutional and national evidence, highlighting the nested interactions amongst the three through a fine-grained, in-depth embedded series of analyses. Future studies could use a similar framing, as recommended by Badillo-Vega et al. (2021). Other future research directions include (a) to what extent rektors through their work have ‘real’ effects on the nature and role of U-SE in the individual institutions they lead, and the nested contexts in which their university is embedded; (b) how other leaders within the university experience their role in navigating the rektor’s distanced relations both down and up; and (c) how deans navigate their own internal and external U-SE work in relation to their rektor’s initiatives. This research on how university leaders enact and affect the relationship between universities and society in international, regional, and national contexts also has implications for the way policy-makers frame and evaluate U-SE.

Conclusion

The work these rektors did to ensure ‘their’ universities were perceived and understood by societal stakeholders extensively hinged on the relationships they established and nurtured both internally and externally. Overall, the study demonstrates how universities engage/connect with their surrounding societal contexts THROUGH leadership, and how leadership becomes an ongoing negotiation and interpretation of those relationships – both externally AND internally. The study shows that how universities are seen and understood as valuable by societal stakeholders hinges to a significant degree on the personal serendipitous and strategic encounters, relationships and dialogues university rectors enact. Further, the study shows that trust-building both internally (in institutions) and externally (beyond institutions) plays a greater role than hitherto known or acknowledged in changing and influencing the public image or societal profile of an individual university.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research partially supported by funding from the Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF) Sapere Aude: 0163-00003A.

ORCID iD

Lynn McAlpine

Notes

Lynn McAlpine is Professor Emerita at University of Oxford and McGill University. A key interest is how PhDs and graduates navigate their careers and personal lives amidst global trends for highly skilled workers, national policy regimes and institutional affordances and constraints.

Tessa DeLaquil is a postdoctoral fellow in the School of Education at University College Dublin with the PINNACLE project. Her research interests include theory, values, and ideas of the university in the areas of philosophy of higher education, international higher education, and international development.

Søren SE Bengtsen, Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Philosophy and General Education, Danish School of Education, is also Co-Director of the Centre for Higher Education Futures there. He is Co-Editor of two book series: ‘Debating Higher Education: Philosophical Perspectives’ (Springer) and ‘World Issues in the Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education’ (Routledge).

Andrew G Gibson is Assistant Professor in Philosophy of Education at Trinity College Dublin, where he is Co-Director of the Cultures, Academic Values in Education Research Centre. His research interests are in the area of the philosophy of higher education, theories of the humanities as a metadiscipline, and critical policy studies.

References

Archer

(2000) Being Human: The Problem of Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Badillo-Vega

Buendía-Espinosa

(2022) The leadership roles of Mexico’s university presidents. Studies in Higher Education 47(2): 378–393.

Badillo-Vega

Krücken

Pineda

(2021) Changing analytical levels and methods of leadership research on university presidents. Studies in Higher Education 46(4): 677–689.

Bengtsen

McAlpine

(2022) A novel perspective on doctoral supervision: interaction of time, academic work, institutional policies, and lifecourse. Learning and Teaching: The International Journal of Higher Education in the Social Science 15(1): 21–45.

Bengtsen

McAlpine

(2023) Nested leadership in research education. In: Elliot

Bengtsen

Guccione

(eds) Developing Researcher Independence through the Hidden Curriculum. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 211–220.

Bolden

Petrov

Gosling

(2008) Tensions in higher education leadership: towards a multi-level model of leadership practice. Higher Education Quarterly 62(4): 358–376.

Bosetti

Walker

(2010) Perspectives of UK vice-chancellors on leading universities in a knowledge-based economy. Higher Education Quarterly 64(1): 4–21.

Brummett

(2019) Techniques of Close Reading. 2nd.Edition. Los Angeles: Sage.

de Boer

Huisman

Meister‐Scheytt

(2010) Supervision in ‘modern’ university governance: boards under scrutiny. Studies in Higher Education and Information Technologies 35(3): 317–333.

10.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5(1): 80–92.

11.

Folketinget (Danish Parliament) (2019) Bekendtgørelse af lov om universiteter (universitetsloven), [proclamation of the universities act (universities act)]. LBK nr 778 af 07/08/2019. https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2019/778

12.

Gibson

Bengtsen

SSE

(2024a) Who is ‘society’ in the societal impact debate? A critical discussion of policies of closure. Educational Philosophy and Theory 52: 2409742.

13.

Gibson

Bengtsen

SSE

(2024b) World humanities—towards an ontology of policy. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education 23(1): 3–22.

14.

Gregersen

Linde

Rasmussen

(2009) Linking between Danish universities and society. Science and Public Policy 36(2): 151–156.

15.

Haslam

Reicher

(2016) Rethinking the psychology of leadership: from personal identity to social identity. Dædalus 145(3): 21–34.

16.

Heffernan

Eacott

Bosetti

(2021) Higher education leadership and context: a study of university vice-chancellors and presidents. International Journal of Educational Management 35(5): 1063–1073.

17.

Houston

Hyndman

McLean

, et al. (2010) The methods and meanings of collaborative team research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(4): 285–297.

18.

Jiang

Newman

, et al. (2019) Career exploration: a review and future research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior 110: 338–356.

19.

Krippendorff

(2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

20.

Liu

Hong

Wen

, et al. (2020) Global university president leadership characteristics and dynamics. Studies in Higher Education 45(10): 2036–2044.

21.

Machovcova

Kováts

Mudrák

, et al. (2023) (Dis)continuities in academic middle management career trajectories: a longitudinal qualitative study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 46: 200–217. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2023.2276589.

22.

Martinez

Chassler

Lobb

, et al. (2023) A discussion among deans on advancing community-engaged research. Clinical and Translational Sciences 16: 557–563.

23.

McAlpine

Amundsen

(2018) Identity-trajectories: Ways of Understanding Post-PhD Career Choices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

24.

McAlpine

Bengtsen

Gibson

, et al. (2024) Valuing humanities: rethinking the humanities-impact landscape in Denmark Arts and Humanities in higher education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/147402222412610342

25.

Ricoeur

(1976) Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: TCU press.

26.

Riessman

(2008) Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. New York: Sage.

27.

Saldaña

(2015) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angeles: Sage.

28.

Selg

(2020) Causation is not everything: on constitution and transactional view of social science methodology. In: Morgner

(ed) Reinventing Social Relations and Processes: John Dewey and Trans-actions. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 31–53.

29.

Watermeyer

(2015) Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education 5(3): 331–347.

30.

Wright

Carney

Krejsler

, et al. (2019) Enacting the university: Danish university reform in an ethnographic perspective. New York: Springer, Vol. 53. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-024

31.

Zinner

Lindorfer

O'Reilly

(2022) Leadership in changing doctoral education. European Journal of Education 57: 424–437.

Rectors and university-societal engagement: Representing the ‘reality’ of ‘their’ university

Abstract

Keywords

Context

Nested university leadership

Research question

Methodology

Approach

Policy

Document collection

Document analysis

Individual experience

Developing protocols and profiles

Analysis

Limitations

Results: External ‘tête-à-tête’ intimacy and internal distanced U-SE relationships

Danish policy context

The university contexts

The rektors’ experience

Past experience: ‘Fall [ing] into leading’

Distinct, lonely position: ‘For’ but ‘not of’ the university

Janus-faced boundary existence: Enacting ‘their’ university

‘Their’ university’s unquestioned U-SE: Societal actors as collaborators and allies

‘Prickly’ political governance tensions

Expanding our understanding of leading universities in society

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

References