Strategic direction restricts academic freedom
Political and financial direction are eroding the freedom of science. Research organisations must ensure this direction does not trickle down to researchers’ everyday life.
Text esa väliverronen english translation marko saajanaho
Academic freedom in Finland is a much more topical theme today than it was a little over five years ago, when my colleagues and I published the book Tieteen vapaus ja tutkijan sananvapaus1 (“Freedom of science and freedom of expression for the researcher”) There has been plenty of discourse over the recent Academic Freedom Index report2, in which Finland’s rank had dropped significantly in the international comparison.
Finland’s rank (47th) has also provoked criticism. There have been doubts as to whether academic freedom in Finland is truly in direr straits than Jamaica, Honduras, or Botswana, to name a few higher-ranked examples. In my opinion, the respective order of countries should not be focused on too heavily, as experts in different countries may evaluate these matters slightly differently. More relevant is to look at the score of each country and how that has changed. The most important information regarding Finland was the fact its score had dropped in all areas of academic freedom. Finland scored the lowest on the institutional autonomy of universities.
Freedom of research and teaching as part of academic freedom
Freedom of research and teaching are essential requirements for science and its development. They form a larger whole called academic freedom. University autonomy is legally protected, and researchers and research organisations have had relatively extensive autonomy to decide what to study and teach and how. Freedom of expression for researchers is also included – researchers must be free to participate in social discourse without threats or pressure.
In late 2025, the Committee for Public Information (TJNK) conducted a survey aimed at researchers and teachers, regarding the state of academic freedom in Finland.3 The open online survey is not statistically representative, but especially the open responses provided interesting information on the experiences of researchers and teachers.
According to the survey, the clear majority of respondents considered the state of academic freedom quite good. On the other hand, most respondents thought the state of academic freedom has weakened to some extent in the last two years.
The most interesting material in the survey came from the open responses in which researchers and teachers discussed their experiences regarding academic freedom in their own words. They repeatedly highlighted concerns of the increasingly tense social climate, belittlement of research and researchers, and attempts at financial or political interference in science.
Where do restrictions of academic freedom come from?
Broadly speaking, they can come from non-science sources or from inside a scientific organisation. When the TJNK survey respondents were asked to name these parties, most frequently mentioned were research funders and political influencers. On the other hand, internal actors in the science community such as employers and management were often mentioned as well.
When respondents named the research funder as an obstacle to academic freedom, they meant e.g., concrete situations in which the patron of a study had attempted to interfere in the execution of research or the publication of results. At the same time, many more respondents described structural problems in research funding. They talked about the reduced role of free basic research, the power of strategic performance management, and the focus on “fashionable” or “useful” fields in research funding. This weakens opportunities for free, researcher-driven research.
Many also highlighted problems within the scientific community, which is ideal for reducing academic freedom. Such problems included hierarchical management of the organisation as well as the trickling down of external political and financial direction within the organisation, reducing the ability of research group leaders and individual researchers to make decisions on their own research.
The results were quite similar to a survey conducted in Sweden about two years ago, which raised political direction, research funding problems, increasing bureaucratic control, and threats and harassment against researchers as the main factors threatening academic freedom.4
Research centres and universities of applied sciences form an interesting point of comparison to universities. Their employees lack the legally protected academic freedom universities enjoy.5 Based on the responses, strategic direction seems to have become more restrictive at research centres, and many respondents considered the lack of academic freedom a significant problem. Those working at universities of applied sciences thought the lack of freedom hurt staff motivation and research and teaching quality.
Political direction and researcher harassment
Because science and universities are heavily dependent on government funding, the government and ministries can restrict the autonomy of science via political appointments, funding cuts, or other politically motivated methods. This is typical in dictatorships and autocracies but has more recently been observed elsewhere as well, especially in the United States.
Unfortunately, such a trend is possible even when legislation theoretically ensures academic freedom. Even in Finland, concerns have been raised in recent years on whether the government would start reining in academic freedom and restricting independent research in decision-making bodies. Examples of this include the prepared legislation regarding the Research Council of Finland, shelving the Strategic Research Council’s immigration theme, and plans to subjugate science panels under the Prime Minister’s Office. The government reviewed their policies following public criticism, but concern of increased political direction was evident in the survey responses.
Another major external threat is the threatening and harassment of researchers, which has influenced public discourse in Finland for over a decade. 6 This threat comes mainly from private citizens and sometimes activists or politicians and can be observed especially in social media discussions. Threats, harassment, and targeting are more common when discussing politically charged topics such as the environment, nutrition, foreign policy, immigration, gender, sexuality, and minorities. In addition to verbal threats, these issues may escalate into physical threats, at which point the researcher may require special protection in their workplace or public events, for example. However, the majority of the survey respondents had not experienced such harassment.
The science organisation’s internalised control
Despite all of the above, perhaps the most significant threat to academic freedom can be traced to science organisation administration and management. This refers to practices and mechanisms in place at the organisation level, through which external political and financial direction trickles down to the everyday life of individual researchers and research groups.
This trend is primarily associated with the commercialisation of universities, increased utilitarian mentality, top-down management, and use of various productivity metrics in the evaluation of academic activities. In the background, the New Public Management model is a constant influence that sees universities as units competing against each other. In order to succeed at that competition, they must constantly improve their efficiency, sharpen their profile, and show their efficiency using various assessments and metrics. Since the 2010 University Act, Finland has increasingly moved to hierarchical rather than collegial management methods.7
In the UK, where this development trend has gone considerably further than in Finland, this is considered one main reason for reduced academic freedom. According to a university staff survey conducted a few years ago, the commercialisation of universities, tighter management, constant evaluation, and new digital forms of control significantly erode academic freedom.8
Because free science is too unpredictable and slow, people want to optimise it and make it more efficient. Metrics are developed for identifying the commercial benefits and social utility of science. When money is tied to these goals and metrics, universities and researchers start to direct themselves according to the metrics – to produce what can be quantified and what is rewarded by the metrics. The book The Quantified scholar9is an apt description of this power of performance management in the UK. This trend also changes how research is discussed. Even communication about science turns into seeking attention, promoting achievements, and pleasing metrics.10
While Orbán’s Hungary and Trump’s United States represent hard, brutal power in relation to science, the trend in the UK and the Nordic countries highlights softer, indirect use of power. Researchers do not lose funding for using the wrong terms. Instead, they are primarily given funding when they decide to study appropriate, fashionable, and strategically selected subjects and produce what the metrics recognise.
Sources:
1. Väliverronen, Esa & Ekholm, Kai (toim.) Tieteen vapaus ja tutkijan sananvapaus. Tampere: Vastapaino 2020.
2. Kinzelbach, Katrin ym. (2025). Academic Freedom Index–Update 2025. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität & V-Dem institute.
3. Väliverronen, Esa (2026) Akateemisen vapauden tila Suomessa: tutkijoiden ja opettajien näkemyksiä. Vastuullisen tieteen julkaisusarja 1/2026. Tiedonjulkistamisen neuvottelukunta, Helsinki. https://edition.fi/tsv/catalog/view/1852/2083/7593
4. Tovatt, Caroline et al. (2024). Academic Freedom in Sweden. Government Commission on Higher Education Institutions’ Efforts to Promote and Protect Academic Freedom. Published by Swedish Higher Education Authority. https://www.uka.se/download/18.2fa96fd71953b860ce074/1740733003866/report%20and%20questionnaire-Academic%20freedom%20in%20Sweden.pdf
5. Saikkonen, Sampsa & Väliverronen, Esa (2022a). Ulkopuolinen vaikuttaminen ja institutionaalinen itsesensuuri: ympäristötutkijoiden kokemuksia valtion tutkimuslaitoksissa. Sosiologia 59 (1), 51–66.
6. Väliverronen, Esa & Saikkonen, Sampsa (2021b). Freedom of Expression Challenged: Scientists’ Perspectives on Hidden Forms of Suppression and Self-censorship. Science, Technology & Human Values 46 (6), 1172–1200.
7. See e.g., Poutanen, Mikko; Tomperi, Tuukka; Kuusela, Hanna; Kaleva, Veera & Tervasmäki, Tuomas (2022). From democracy to managerialism: foundation universities as the embodiment of Finnish university policies. Journal of Education Policy, 37(3), 419–442.
8. Karran, Terence & Kissoon, Chavan (2023) Academic freedom in the digital university: An exploration of how technology-enabled management practices mediate power relations between academic staff and university employers. University and College Union. University of Lincoln.
9. Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo (2022) The quantified scholar: How research evaluations transformed the British social sciences. Columbia University Press.
10. Väliverronen, Esa (2021). Mediatisation of Science and the Rise of Promotional Culture. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Massimiano Bucchi & Brian Trench (ed). London.
