Search

This paper investigates the accountability mechanisms introduced in the universities in the Nordic countries by building on a typology of accountability types. By utilising survey data, it analyses how academics experience the changes in accountability mechanisms and how they perceive the impact of these changes on their performance. The analysis shows that especially political/bureaucratic and managerial accountability demands have been strengthened. This development has fostered debates on how to measure academic performance. Some academics, more in Denmark than in the other countries, have experienced the development as a sign of mistrust.

Research on the evaluation of large-scale public-sector reforms is rare. This article sets out to fill that gap in the evaluation literature and argues that it is of vital importance since the impact of such reforms is considerable and they change the context in which evaluations of other and more delimited policy areas take place. In our analysis, we apply four governance perspectives (rational-instrumental perspective, rational interest-based perspective, institutional-cultural perspective, and chaos perspective) in a comparative analysis of the evaluations of two large-scale public-sector reforms in Denmark and Norway. We compare the evaluation process (focus and purpose), the evaluators, and the organization of the evaluation, as well as the utilization of the evaluation results. The analysis uncovers several significant findings including how the initial organization of the evaluation shows strong impact on the utilization of the evaluation and how evaluators can approach the challenges of evaluating large-scale reforms.

This article presents an analysis of the mergers in the Danish Higher Education (HE)-sector with a particular emphasis on the 2007 mergers involving universities and Government Research Institutes (GRIs). Furthermore, it follows the post-merger processes up to 2014/2015 at two Danish universities and examines the consequences of the changes seen from the perspective of the key stakeholders, the university managements and the employees. It is shown that the two cases differ in important respects, but also that the three groups of actors within each case have different views of both the processes and the outcomes. Finally, it is shown that it makes a significant difference whether a federal or a unitary structure is implemented after the merger, although each solution has both strengths and weaknesses.

Current educational evaluation is institutionalized as an element in national educational policy in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. This article analyses how higher education and primary and lower secondary education have adopted and institutionalized educational evaluation. The analysis shows similarities and differences in organizing and practicing evaluation both across educational levels and across countries. Sweden was an early adaptor, Denmark and Norway later ones. Educational evaluation was institutionalized in higher education prior to primary and secondary education. In both cases international dynamics have played an important role. (Contains 1 table.)

The paper presents how research evidence in the form of systematic reviews was established in Denmark in the fields of medicine, social affairs and education. Based on a research project, the institutionalization of the idea of evidence-based policy and practice through the establishment of evidence producing organizations, such as The Campbell Collaboration, i.e. the so-called evidence movement is described and analyzed. The evidence movement is an international affair, but in this paper the focus is on the Danish branch of the movement and on the political aspects related to this. Three questions are addressed: 1) Why and how has the evidence movement become institutionalized? 2) How is it organised and how does it practice? 3) Which are the political dimensions and conflicts related to this development? The paper is divided in two parts. The first part is empirical. It holds an analysis of how the idea of evidence-based policy and practice has travelled into Denmark, how the idea has been institutionalised in organisations specialized in producing evidence-based knowledge and how these organisations practice. The second part of the paper is reflective. It holds a discussion of the political dimensions and the political context of the development of the evidence movement including a discussion on the conceptual dispute, the methodological conflicts and the roles of different actors engaged in the arena of evidence politics. Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag zeigt, wie sich Evidenz in der Form systematischer Reviews in den Feldern Medizin, Sozialarbeit und Bildung in Danemark etabliert hat. Die so genannte Evidenzbewegung ('evidence movement'), also die Institutionalisierung der Idee einer evidenzbasierten Politik durch die Etablierung evidenzproduzierender Organisationen (z.B. Campbell Collaboration) wird auf Basis eines Forschungsprojektes beschrieben und analysiert. Die Evidenzbewegung ist international, doch steht im Fokus des Artikels der danische Zweig der Bewegung. Drei Fragen werden diskutiert: 1) Warum und wie wurde die Evidenzbewegung institutionalisiert? 2) Wie ist sie organisiert und wie sieht ihre Praxis aus? 3) Welche politischen Dimensionen und Konflikte sind mit dieser Entwicklung verbunden? Der Artikel ist zweigeteilt. Der erste empirische Teil analysiert, wie die Idee einer evidenzbasierten Politik und Praxis nach Danemark gekommen ist, wie sie in Form von Organisationen, die auf die Wissensproduktion spezialisiert sind, institutionalisiert wurde und wie diese Organisationen arbeiten. Der zweite reflektierende Teil diskutiert die politischen Dimensionen und den politischen Kontext der Entwicklung der Evidenzbewegung und geht dabei auf die konzeptionellen und methodologischen Debatten sowie auf die Rollen der verschiedenen Akteure in der Arena der Evidenzpolitik ein., 1 Introduction In Denmark welfare policies and public sector reforms are high politics these years. Demographic changes threaten on the horizon. Projections show that in the future there will be [...]

In the 1990s and 2000s, the evidence wave in evaluation practice gained momentum first in medicine later in other policy fields. The evidence idea inspired actors in Scandinavia where evidence producing organizations were established. The aim of our study is to better understand these organizations and explore their characteristics in Denmark and Norway. We compare their organizational structures, stance towards ministries, resources and governance frameworks and analyse organizational change across time. Although the ideas of evidence-based policy and practice are common in the two countries, the organizations and context for evidence producing activities differ. Furthermore, in policy fields outside medicine the evidence movement is struggling to maintain support and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public organizations vary considerably. Yet little attention has been paid to the systematic analysis of this diversity. Drawing on case studies of four public organizations and a survey on all central government organizations in Denmark, variations in tasks, environments, constituencies, and central governance are conceptualized. Public organization tasks can be analysed at three levels ranging from user-oriented outputs, general outputs which can further be divided into policy goals, scope of profile, standard setting and capital accumulation, to the normative base of the public sector. Public organizations vary with regard to the emphasis put on level of output and on how the different aspects of the tasks are interrelated. Variations in constituencies and exchange cycles with the environment are further related to different task profiles. Finally it is shown that central oversight organizations compete with other actors in the public organizations' environment in the governance of public organizations. From an organizational point of view `the state' appears to have a humble and remote position.

Research on the evaluation of large-scale public-sector reforms is rare. This article sets out to fill that gap in the evaluation literature and argues that it is of vital importance since the impact of such reforms is considerable and they change the context in which evaluations of other and more delimited policy areas take place. In our analysis, we apply four governance perspectives (rational-instrumental perspective, rational interest–based perspective, institutional-cultural perspective, and chaos perspective) in a comparative analysis of the evaluations of two large-scale public-sector reforms in Denmark and Norway. We compare the evaluation process (focus and purpose), the evaluators, and the organization of the evaluation, as well as the utilization of the evaluation results. The analysis uncovers several significant findings including how the initial organization of the evaluation shows strong impact on the utilization of the evaluation and how evaluators can approach the challenges of evaluating large-scale reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The public sector in the Nordic countries has been subject to substantial reform in recent decades. The article explores the changing reform dynamic in Denmark and Norway, focusing on centralising and decentralising trends in two prominent sectors: higher education and health care. The main question is: How can the reform dynamics over the last decade explain changes surrounding decentralisation and/or re-centralisation? A new trend can be observed in both sectors, namely the rise of re-centralisation and the concomitant growth of state responsibility in matters pertaining to political and fiscal decision- making. Both hospitals and universities have been given increased (procedural) autonomy. At the same time there is stronger centralised planning and management of performance management, which means that (substantive) autonomy has been reduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]