Norwegian version of this page

Finn-Eirik Johansen

Candidate for the University Board among permanent employees with teaching and research positions.

Finn-Eirik Johansen, Professor, Department of Biosciences, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences.

Nominated by:

  • Marianne Fyhn, Professor, Department of Biosciences, MN
  • Dag O. Hessen, Professor, Department of Biosciences, MN
  • Kristian Gundersen, Professor, Department of Biosciences, MN
  • Unni Olsbye, Professor, Department of Chemistry, MN
  • Ludvig Sollid, Professor, Institute of Clinical Medicine, MED
  • Ole A. Andreassen, Professor, Institute of Clinical Medicine, MED
  • Joel Glover, Professor, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, MED
  • Petter Bae Brandtz?g, Professor, Department of Media and Communication, HF
  • Karen O'Brian, Professor, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, SV

Election platform

Finn-Eirik Johansen
Finn-Eirik Johansen

I am running for election to the University Board because I have a strong commitment to the whole University of Oslo, its heterogeneity and diversity. I believe that we should strive to consolidate UiO as the leading university in Norway for research and education. Furthermore, UiO faculty members should be clear, knowledge-based voices in the public debate. To achieve these goals, the development and maintenance of outstanding academic environments for research and education must be prioritized within the broad university. UiO educates candidates and has important societal functions beyond the excellent university. The breadth is necessary for this mission and needed to safeguard non-conformity, which the university should cultivate. Outstanding academic environments of the future will sometimes develop from the intersection between existing strong environments, but also sometimes from areas within the breadth of UiO in placed we did not predict.

University Democracy

I am a supporter of a strong university democracy and believe the current system, where the rector and deans are elected, is best suited to ensure this democracy. There is no evidence that hired candidates are superior to elected, but we should work hard to produce more candidates and a greater diversity among those who stand for election. The recent elections of deans at several faculties (Humanities, Dentistry, Law) give cause for optimism. The basic units (departments, institutes and centers) are the cornerstones of the university and must have leaders with a solid academic background who understand the nature of research and education, the needs of the employees and who safeguard the autonomy of the academic staff.

UiO is a knowledge organization and the knowledge is found at the lowest organizational levels. Leaders at all levels must show confidence in the knowledge of those they lead and facilitate utilization of this knowledge is in the best possible way. This means that the university must facilitate free curiosity-driven research, and that academic staff must have the right to participate in prioritization processes and decisions that affect the university's academic and organizational development.

Research, teaching and public relations

There is an increased recognition of the importance of research to society, but many academic staff experience less room to conduct unrestricted, curiosity-driven basic research. This is a paradox. Researchers are experiencing an increased administrative burden and an ever-increasing thirst for reporting. Some of this burden on researcher is politically controlled, but UiO must remove self-imposed reporting and control when the purpose does not justify the burden on employees. UiO must communicate clearly that society in the long run is best served by the university maintaining the autonomy of the scientific staff.

The university has a significant basic funding, which to a certain extent is used to position us towards greater access to external funding (especially the EU and the Research Council of Norway). However, the university also has a responsibility to ensure important research areas with a lower degree of access to external funding and academic staff's opportunity for unrestricted, curiosity-driven research. I believe the university should keep its focus on long-term, often disciplinary, basic research.

I have a great commitment to interdisciplinarity and have worked to promote collaboration across fields as former director and board member of UiO: Life Sciences and as board member of UiO:Nordic. UiO still has an untapped potential for interdisciplinary collaboration, both in research and in teaching. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) put into words many of the greatest challenges of our time, to which UiO in collaboration with actors locally, nationally and internationally will contribute to find solutions. UiO must facilitate for the many employees who want to work interdisciplinary to help solve complex societal challenges. In order to foster strong interdisciplinary environments, it is necessary to create security, mutual recognition, and most importantly, interdisciplinarity must be based on strong disciplinary academic environments.

Significant progress has been made in teaching at UiO in recent years, especially in terms of increasing the recognition of good teaching and skilled teachers. There are still administrative and financial obstacles, created by a rigid internal funding model, which stand in the way of collaboration across units and optimal utilization of the university's total resources for teaching. A challenge for many employees is that the resources needed to modernize and develop course content do not exist, or that such funds can only be obtained from competitive calls, in which there will be both losers and winners.

The Higher Education Act sets a number of requirements for the university, often summarized as the three primary tasks of research, education, as well as dissemination and innovation (a.k.a. "applying the knowledge" or “impact”). It is important to remember that it is the university itself and not every single employee who must fulfill the purpose of the Higher Education Act. Thus, not all employees have a duty to have extensive public contact, but together we must ensure that UiO engages in societal issues and extends our impact beyond the academic realm. Researchers should be encouraged to speak out publicly and have the right to do so even if their views diverge from those of leaders and colleagues. Dissemination and other societal contact is an important task, but many employees have little education, training or experience in this. The unive