Search

The Scandinavian states have international reputations for promoting social democratic ideals, which have long been manifest in Nordic universities, e.g. legal protection for academic freedom and university studies free of charge. However, Nordic governments have made new h.e. laws, thereby changing university autonomy and management structures, leading to greater involvement by external personnel in university governance, and reduced academic freedom for academic staff. Utilizing legal data, and a survey of +5,000 academics from the EU states, this paper compares the protection for academic freedom in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. The "de jure" analysis shows that a single Nordic grouping is not apparent, but that there are two distinct Scandinavian cohorts. The "de facto" analysis reveals differences between the Nordic nations and other EU states but does neither confirm the Nordic model nor substantiate two regional cohorts identified in previous research and in the "de jure" analysis.

Using comparable legal information, and empirical data from over 2000 members of the UK's University and College Union and 2000 staff in universities of the European states, gathered by means of similar surveys, this paper is a comparative assessment of the "de jure" protection for, and the "de facto" levels of, academic freedom enjoyed by academic staff in the UK, when compared to their EU counterparts. The paper examines the legal and constitutional protection for academic freedom and the current levels of, and changes to, the two substantive elements (freedom to teach and freedom to research) and three supportive components (autonomy, governance and tenure) of academic freedom. The study reveals that UK academic staff believe that there is a low level of protection for academic freedom and that it has declined, both in general, and with respect to the two substantive elements and three supportive components of academic freedom. Similar trends are evident in the EU states, but statistical tests reveal that for every measure utilised, the decline in academic freedom is significantly greater in the UK than in the EU states.

Using comparative data from 28 states within the European Union, this paper is a comprehensive assessment of the protection for, and (by extension) the health of, academic freedom in the universities of the nations of the European Union. The paper, extending previous work in this area, adopts a 'bottom-up' approach utilising 37 specific parameters that relate to international treaties, and national, constitutional, and legislative protection for academic freedom, along with legal regulations concerning institutional governance, the appointment of the rector, and the existence of academic tenure, in order to create a composite picture of the health of academic freedom in the universities within the European Union nations.

Although the cradle of university education is traced to Africa, modern university education in Africa emanated from European systems which set the tone for their replication on the continent through colonialism. For ideological and other reasons, African universities were subjected to significant violations of their institutional autonomy after independence, which trickled down to affect academics and students alike and thereby violated academic freedom generally. One major area where the abuses centred was the appointment of political leaders to occupy the high echelons of university management and to run the universities as political organs of the one-party systems in vogue at the time. Discussion of this subject has mainly centred on critiquing the excesses of immediate post-colonial governments, sometimes with no linkage to academic freedom. Where academic freedom is introduced into the discourse, the key components of the concept of academic freedom are not clearly delineated and discussed in a manner that links one component to the other. This paper aims to fill this gap. It does so by developing a theoretical framework for academic freedom which is used to analyse and categorise violations of academic freedom under its five pillars--institutional autonomy, self-governance, tenure, individual rights and freedoms for academics, and individual rights and freedoms for students. The paper also examines the factors responsible for the violations of academic freedom and their impact on the evolution of higher education in Africa.

F. The Legal Protection of the Right to Academic Freedom in Europe: Overall Results The following two tables provide an overview of the total scores and results in the main [...]

This paper is a preliminary attempt to establish a working definition of academic freedom for the European Union states. The paper details why such a definition is required for the European Union and then examines some of the difficulties of defining academic freedom. By drawing upon the experience of the legal difficulties beset by the concept in the USA and building on previous analyses of constitutional and legislative protection for academic freedom, and of legal regulations regarding institutional governance and academic tenure, a working definition of academic freedom is then derived. The resultant definition, which, it is suggested, could form the basis for a European "Magna Charta Libertatis Academicae", goes beyond traditional discussions of academic freedom by specifying not only the rights inherent in the concept but also its accompanying duties, necessary limitations and safeguards. The paper concludes with proposals for how the definition might be tested and carried forward.

This paper examines the compliance of universities in the European Union with the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, which deals primarily with protection for academic freedom. The paper briefly surveys the European genesis of the modern research university and academic freedom, before evaluating compliance with the UNESCO recommendation on institutional autonomy, academic freedom, university governance and tenure. Following from this, the paper examines the reasons for the generally low level of compliance with the UNESCO Recommendation within the EU states, and considers how such compliance could be improved.

This article examines the justification for, and benefits of, academic freedom to academics, students, universities and the world at large. It surveys the development of the concept of academic freedom within Europe, more especially the impact of the reforms at the University of Berlin instigated by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Following from this, the article examines the reasons why the various facets of academic freedom are important and why the principle should continue to be supported.

This article assesses the impact of the Bologna Process on the grading schemes of EU member countries. In light of some problems regarding the implementation of the European Credit Transfer system (ECTS), the author proposes further reforms and offers some elements of a unified grading system for European higher education. The author explores the variation among Europe's grading systems and the resulting lessons learned are shared here. Lastly, this article also argues that principles of justice and fairness, deemed central to academic freedom, are best upheld by the use of a unified grading system at national and European levels.

Transparent and consistent credit transfer procedures are essential if EU Universities are to successfully build the European Higher Education Area and thrive in the emerging global knowledge economy. Currently, the European Credit Transfer System is the most widely used mechanism to enable credit transfer between universities in different EU nations. Using data from 20 universities in four EU member states, this paper examines the problems in calculating and using ECTS grades. The results demonstrate that the alignment of ECTS grades varies within nation states and show that, despite the fact that ECTS grading is a norm-referenced system, while national systems are usually criterion-referenced, the ECTS conversion tables provided by universities indicate straight line transference from institutional to ECTS grades. Given the anticipated increase in student mobility following the EU enlargement to 25 nations, this paper proposes a re-alignment of ECTS towards a criterion-referenced system. Such a new system would acknowledge and build on the diversity of EU higher education systems, unlike the current mechanistic system. The latter masks this diversity and is flawed in calculation and ad hoc in operation.

Using comparable legal information, and empirical data from over 2000 members of the UK's University and College Union and 2000 staff in universities of the European states, gathered by means of similar surveys, this paper is a comparative assessment of the de jure protection for, and the de facto levels of, academic freedom enjoyed by academic staff in the UK, when compared to their EU counterparts. The paper examines the legal and constitutional protection for academic freedom and the current levels of, and changes to, the two substantive elements (freedom to teach and freedom to research) and three supportive components (autonomy, governance and tenure) of academic freedom. The study reveals that UK academic staff believe that there is a low level of protection for academic freedom and that it has declined, both in general, and with respect to the two substantive elements and three supportive components of academic freedom. Similar trends are evident in the EU states, but statistical tests reveal that for every measure utilised, the decline in academic freedom is significantly greater in the UK than in the EU states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are an estimated 46.8 million people worldwide living with dementia in 2015, being cared for usually by family members or friends (informal caregivers). The challenges faced by informal caregivers often lead to increased levels of stress, burden and risk of care-recipient institutionalisation. Aim: The overarching aim of this study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of informal caregivers of people with dementia when interacting with the health care system, and whether the support received acted as a mediator of caregiver stress. The secondary aim was to investigate healthcare professionals' views and current practice regarding people with dementia and their interactions with informal caregivers. Method: We employed a qualitative research design, using focus groups and one face-to-face interview with a purposive sample of informal caregivers and healthcare professionals in Lincolnshire, UK. Data were collected between March and July 2015. We used the stress-process model of stress in caregivers as a theoretical framework. Results: We interviewed 18 caregivers and 17 healthcare professionals. Five themes, mapped to the stress-process in caregivers' model, captured the main challenges faced by caregivers and the type of support they wanted from health care services. Primary stressors included the challenge of diagnosing dementia; caregivers' needs and expectations of an in-depth knowledge and understanding of dementia from healthcare professionals; and need for carer education. Secondary role strain included lack of support and mismatch of communication and expectations. Caregiver involvement in monitoring care and disease was a potential mediator tool. Conclusions: Fragmentation of dementia care services, lack of training for healthcare professionals and the dearth of information for caregivers means health care services are only partially fulfilling a support role. In turn, lack of support may be intensifying caregiver stress leading to worsening in their health and well-being; thus, potentially increasing the risk of institutionalisation of their care-recipient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]