Towards Nordic University Collaboration on Lifelong Learning for Engineers: Triangulating Stakeholder Perspectives

Research Paper Recommended citation: Bennedsen, J., Roslöf, J., Hansen, B. L., Øien, G. E. D., Berge, R. A., & Andersen, B. (2025). Towards Nordic University Collaboration on Lifelong Learning for Engineers: Triangulating Stakeholder Perspectives. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631873. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. TOWARDS NORDIC UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION ON LIFELONG LEARNING FOR ENGINEERS: TRIANGULATING STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES J. Bennedsen a,1, J Roslöf b,c, G. E. D. Øien d, R. A. Berge e, B. Andersen f, B. L. Hansen g a Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, 0000-0003-3014-7567 b Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland, 0000-0003-2038-8113 c LAB University of Applied Sciences, Lahti, Finland, 0000-0003-2038-8113 d NTNU, Trondheim, Norway e NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, 0009-0009-5826-2437 f NTNU, Trondheim, Norway g it-vest, Aarhus, Denmark Conference Key Areas: Continuing education and life-long learning in engineering, Dialogue between engineering and society – effects on education Keywords: Lifelong learning, continuing education, barriers, enablers, Nordic collaboration ABSTRACT This study investigates the potential of Nordic university collaboration in lifelong learning (LLL) for engineers, focusing on stakeholder perspectives to identify barriers and enablers. A literature review highlights key barriers such as communication gaps, stakeholder diversity, restrictive legislation, and unstable funding models. Enablers include flexible structures, stakeholder collaboration, and robust digital infrastructures. The study triangulates perspectives from 11 interviews with stakeholders from academia, industry, and professional organizations across Nordic countries. Findings reveal significant barriers including lack of recognition of qualifications, financial constraints, administrative complexities, and misalignment with market needs. Interviewees emphasize trust and clear communication in overcoming these barriers. 1 Corresponding Author J Bennedsen [email protected].dk The study advocates for Nordic collaboration to leverage shared cultural values and educational similarities, enhancing cost-efficiency and quality of LLL offerings. It concludes that Nordic collaboration offers a balanced approach, combining regional synergies with global perspectives, despite added administrative complexity. 1 INTRODUCTION In the early 1990s, European and U.S. interest in lifelong learning (LLL) was renewed, driven by reports that popularized LLL and its importance in the face of global competition and shifts towards knowledge-based industries, and emphasized the need for continuous, lifelong education (Titz 1995, International Commission on the Development of Education 2013). Today, Nordic countries are still focusing on LLL for competitiveness, with universities being among the important providers. However, Nordic universities face challenges in creating sustainable LLL models for engineers (Bennedsen & Øien 2023). Transnational collaboration, aided by digitalisation, could help overcome some of these obstacles, but might also create new challenges. The aim of the present study has been to systematically map interests, barriers, and enablers connected to Nordic and transnational collaboration within LLL for engineers, as seen through several relevant stakeholder perspectives. Note that the Nordic countries have a social-democratic welfare regime compared to the rest of Europe (conservative or liberal); e.g., unions play a bigger role (Esping-Andersen 1990). However, as Esping-Andersen points out “The Scandinavian countries may be predominantly social democratic, but they are not free of crucial liberal elements. Neither are the liberal regimes pure types.(p. 28)” In the time after 1990 there has been a substantial influence from New Public Management (NPM). NPM-inspired reforms introduced market-oriented governance, performance measurement, and increased managerial control, reshaping the organization and operation of universities across Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (Holmén & Ringarp 2023). 2 RELATED WORK A literature review was performed to shed light on the status of engineering LLL, with emphasis on analysing barriers and enablers for strengthening LLL provision. To ensure timeliness and regional relevance the primary focus was on recent Nordic research papers on LLL. Papers also had to include the perspective of formal university-level education. The result was a list of five papers: Lybecker & Nørgaard (2023) emphasize the importance of political actions and support for engineering LLL at Scandinavian universities. It highlights the need for flexible structures in delivery, teaching, and incentives within higher education institutions (HEIs) to meet market demands and discusses the need for better communication with companies and broader society to ensure relevance of LLL activities. Thunissen (2023) identifies the complexity and challenges posed by the multiplicity of stakeholders in LLL. Different expectations of government, education institutions, employers, and learners create barriers towards finding relevant LLL opportunities. The paper suggests using stakeholder analysis to address these challenges. Bennedsen et al. (2023) extends the use of a framework identifying four types of barriers against LLL: institutional, situational, dispositional, and informational. The paper explores commonalities and differences across regions, highlighting, e.g., restrictive legislation, bureaucratic boundaries, and unstable funding models as barriers. The study reveals that LLL still plays a minor role in most universities, with insufficient encouragement, despite being included in strategies. Bennedsen & Øien (2023) discusses the importance of LLL in maintaining national competitiveness through workforce upskilling and reskilling, identifying barriers such as economic constraints, inconsistent student intake, and limited academic resources. The paper also highlights successful LLL examples in the Nordic-Baltic region, emphasizing the importance of collaboration among universities. The comparative study of GomezPuente et al. (2023) analyses LLL services at eight universities in different countries, identifying key aspects such as the organization of LLL, the type of courses offered, and their alignment with market needs. It highlights the importance of flexible mechanisms, e.g., short courses, or micro-credentials leading to qualifications. The findings from the literature review can be summed up as follows: Barriers:  Communication and relevance: We need better communication between universities, companies, and society at large to ensure relevant LLL offerings.  Multiplicity of stakeholders: Different expectations of involved stakeholders create challenges for workers and employers when looking for relevant LLL offerings.  Legislation and capacity constraints: Current legislation and capacity constraints, along with bureaucratic boundaries, slow down and frustrate LLL initiatives. Unstable funding models with few strong incentives for universities and staff to engage in LLL are also significant barriers.  Economic constraints: Economic unpredictability and resource scarcity hinder the establishment of sustainable models for LLL. Enablers:  Flexible Structures: More flexibility in delivery, teaching, and incentive structures within HEIs is needed to meet market demands.  Stakeholder Collaboration: Stakeholder collaboration, e.g., national consortia models and joint marketing platforms, can enhance visibility and enable flexible, modular LLL offerings. 3 METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research question Our research questions are: Based on triangulation of stakeholder perspectives, i. which barriers against university-level LLL for engineers can be identified? ii. what are desirable properties in models for university-level LLL for engineers? 3.2 Method and data The data of this study consists of 11 interviews conducted in August-December 2024, all but one recorded (the last one had technical issues, but the interviewer took good notes). Interviewees were selected to cover the stakeholder perspectives of employers, employees, and academia (details in Appendix 2). Five interviewees represented industry (employers), two professional organizations/unions (employees), and three university management. In addition, one interviewee worked at a non-academic LLL provider. Four interviewees were Finnish, three Danish, four Norwegian, and one from the UK. The study followed the participating institutions’ guidelines for research ethics. The interviewees were provided with background information on the study and gave informed consent to participate. Before submitting this paper for peer review, we also provided a summary of results and findings for interviewees to comment on. A summary of the semi-structured interview questions is presented in Appendix 1. 4 RESULTS 4.1 Identified barriers for university-level LLL Adding to the literature review, interviewees representing universities providing higher engineering education expressed that a lack of recognition of qualifications across countries, lack of clear and accessible information, financial constraints, administrative complexity in managing joint programs, and difficulty in understanding market needs are significant barriers. As one of the university interviewees put it: “It requires a lot of trust between the partners, otherwise the administration will be too heavy, and the students might face that a course taken at another institution might not be accepted at [UNIVERSITY]. We need to ensure that the “[UNIVERSITY] signature” is fulfilling the [UNIVERSITY] standards. This can imply that the universities collaborating is more or less on the same level of ranking”. Another interviewee representing university leadership points out: “There have been many different Nordic collaborative initiatives concerning, especially, degree-based education. There's always a lot of enthusiasm at first but then there comes the legislation and the funding parts, and things become very difficult ... There are, of course, ways to overcome those things, but one has to be very aware of how everything works so that we don't fall into these pitfalls.” From the industry side, the following barriers were highlighted: Bureaucratic hurdles and funding constraints, unclear offerings, time constraints for employees due to busy work schedules and personal commitments, limited access to necessary learning materials and technologies as well as (especially) SMEs not having competence development as a focus area. As two interviewees report: “Many companies don't know they have a need, and LLL is really not on top of most of companies’ agendas. Especially the SMEs have difficulties. Large companies have human resources departments to take care of these matters…. Maybe the CEO of the SME is also the one taking care of all kinds of practical problems. And then, LLL just goes down on the agenda.” “…what is available for companies to purchase should be more clearly presented. Now the message from companies is sometimes that they find interesting things, but they are told that, well, this is not really for you, it’s for degree students. But we can negotiate with you in the back room about what the right package for you would be.” A third interviewee expressed the belief that political bureaucracy should be restricted as much as possible, to allow education institutions, employers, and learners to develop flexible, mutually useful, sustainable models in cooperation: “... I have a lot of belief in flexibility. It is very important that the education institutions and the companies can develop offerings together without too much bureaucracy. The point is that there must be a potential for collaboration – there must be something in it both for the education institutions and for the companies. Then we need to develop flexible arrangements.” “... it is also about enabling the education institutions to actually do it, and that has not been highly prioritized.” The Professional Organization interviewee pointed out the following barriers: The current financing models in the Nordic countries are based on annual produced credits, which vary significantly over time and lack long-term predictability. This does not support the shorter, flexible courses needed by industry. There is too much information available online, making it difficult for learners to find relevant courses. The daily pressure at the workplace makes it difficult for employees to take time off for education unless it is flexible and integrated with work responsibilities. Nordic cooperation often faces difficulties due to different practices and limited incentives for collaboration. State funding models encourage competition rather than collaboration. For example, interviewees representing labour market organisations stated: “The cost saving I mentioned earlier would be a sort of a low hanging fruit, but unfortunately, there's not really state funding available. The funding model that we use, it's not really such. It makes universities compete instead of co-working together. And when you discuss these things with universities, you often sooner or later get the reply ‘Yeah, this is a very good idea but does not really fit in our strategy’.” “... there is too much information available, buried in an internet ‘porridge’ which means that it is not actually possible to find. And then the reaction is ‘I cannot find any relevant courses’ - but they are there. ... you can go to university webpages, but there is still a forest full of offerings – it does not help to simply add more information to such pages ... so how can we reach those interested in taking courses?” One interviewee indicated that learners’ reasons for not engaging in LLL are diverse: “... two out of five of our members have engaged in LLL over the past 12 months ... Why have not more people done so? Some say that they don’t have a need, others say they lack time, some say they do not find relevant courses.” Based on the above summaries, we found the most important barriers to be: Funding and Financial Constraints: Both the literature and interviewees consistently highlight unstable and insufficient funding models. Interviewees in particular mention that economic downturns and different funding models can affect both the willingness of companies to invest in upskilling their employees and the ability of universities to offer and maintain such programs. Bureaucratic and Administrative Complexities: The literature points out bureaucratic boundaries and current legislation that slow down LLL initiatives. Interviewees add that administrative complexities, such as managing joint programs across different accreditation systems, can be resource-intensive and hinder implementation. This is exacerbated by differing legislation and funding methods across regions. Market Understanding and Alignment: The literature underscores the need for universities to better understand market needs and align their programs accordingly. Interviewees echo this, emphasizing that providers often struggle to understand demand and conduct market analyses. This can result in programs that do not meet the needs of learners and employers, impacting the effectiveness of LLL initiatives. Recognition of Qualifications and Mobility: Interviewees highlight the challenges of recognizing qualifications across different countries, which can hinder learners' mobility and access to programs. This barrier is crucial for engineers who may need to have their qualifications recognized internationally. Communication and Stakeholder Engagement: Both the literature and interviewees stress the importance of effective communication and engagement between stakeholders. The complexity of coordinating multiple stakeholders with differing expectations creates challenges in finding relevant programs and ensuring their relevance.. 4.2 Desirable properties and enablers for LLL models in engineering The analysis so far highlights the importance of flexibility, robust digital infrastructures, supportive policies, practically oriented learning, and strategic institutional support. By focusing on these areas, universities might develop effective, sustainable LLL programs meeting the needs of individual learners, industry, and society at large. Adding to the literature review, the university voices highlight a potential for more collaboration between Nordic and Baltic countries. However, flexible and economically sustainable collaboration models are needed, and offerings need to be easily accessible and clearly communicated. As two interviewees stated: “The Nordic societies are very similar, and I think that there are same kinds of challenges when it comes to engineering and sciences which are areas that develop very quickly. All these countries do have the same kind of questions on how we respond to this very rapid development and take the most of our educational resources.” “... It is simple between the Nordic countries, really. It is really simple to fit courses from other Nordic universities into our programmes. What is more complicated is if you want to create joint degrees or have two universities’ names on a diploma.” The industry voices point out the importance of flexible, dynamic learning opportunities, as well as strengthening industry-academia relations to ensure relevance of the LLL offerings. Also, they mention the need for clear, sustainable funding. Organisations operating in several Nordic and Baltic countries could particularly benefit from transnational collaboration in many relevant topics. Interviewees report: “Certain themes (e.g., 5G) have been identified where large Nordic companies, such as Nokia and Ericsson, operate and have similar continuous learning interests. This could be an enabler – how to get them involved.” “I would hope that they also focus on creating continuous learning markets rather than trying to divide small or scarce state funds into more and more purposes. … perhaps seed funding to get new ideas off the ground quickly would be needed.” “...If the education institutions could be put in a stronger position, where the necessary funding was released once industry and education institutions together have agreed that there is a need, that would create a much stronger dynamic.” “... It is very useful to have direct relations between the industry and the education institutions; it is very rewarding, and we can talk together in a completely different way once we get to know each other well.” In addition to financial aspects, the union representatives discussed the importance of clear and centralized information on available LLL opportunities, and active dialogue between the universities and industry. Based on our study, we find the most important enablers for university-based LLL for engineers, especially when discussing Nordic and Baltic collaboration, to be: Collaboration and Partnerships: Collaboration between universities and industry is crucial. By aligning their LLL programs with industry needs, universities can ensure their relevance. Consortia models where institutions pool resources and expertise enable the development of flexible and modular programs. Transnational strategies and consortia may further strengthen collaboration and knowledge sharing. Flexible and Sustainable Models: Flexible models that combine digital and physical learning cater to learners’ diverse needs, allowing for adaptable and engaging learning experiences. Sustainable funding models with contributions from government, employers, and learners, are essential for long-term viability of LLL initiatives. Robust Digital Infrastructures: Investing in robust digital infrastructures is important. Suitable digital tools and platforms improve access to information and learning opportunities, making education more accessible and facilitating collaboration. Government and Policy Support: Supportive government policies play a significant role in the success of LLL initiatives. Continued funding and support from the government ensure that programs can be both developed and maintained. Creating incentives encouraging collaboration can overcome some barriers. Relevant Learning Objectives: Emphasizing learning experiences that are immediately applicable in the workplace makes LLL offerings more valuable to learners. Customized programs that cater to specific industry needs can increase the relevance and attractiveness of these offerings. Strategic Support Units: Strategic support units within universities can assist faculty with market understanding, business logic, and partnerships. This enhances the quality and relevance of LLL programs. 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS We now discuss pros and cons of national, Nordic, and broader LLL collaboration models, considering identified barriers, enablers, and desirable model properties: i) National collaboration models National consortia are often easiest to establish due to shared language, culture, and policy frameworks. Governments can more easily implement cohesive funding policies and flexible learning frameworks tailored to national needs, directly incentivizing collaboration and streamlining processes. Robust digital infrastructure is also easier to manage within one country. However, national models may lack diversity and global perspectives, risking ‘silos’ and reduced alignment with international trends as current incentives often prioritize competition over collaboration. ii) Nordic collaboration models Nordic models benefit from shared cultural values and similar education systems, facilitating cross-border university collaboration and pooling of resources. This can support flexible, modular LLL offerings and cost efficiency, especially with strong regional digital infrastructure. Nordic collaboration can address shared challenges and expand markets for universities. Yet, these models involve higher administrative complexity, challenges with differing regulations, and possible inequalities in resource contributions, though these are less pronounced than in broader international models. iii) Broader transnational collaboration models Transnational models enable global sharing of best practices and innovation, with commercial digital platforms supporting worldwide access. Global alliances and accreditation frameworks can foster such cooperation. However, these models face major hurdles: increased administrative and logistical complexity, significant differences in educational systems and funding, resource inequity, and limited in-person collaboration due to distance. Overall, the best model depends on the scale and ambition of collaboration. For Nordic engineers, a well-designed Nordic university collaboration seems to best balance pros and cons, leveraging regional synergies, combining expertise, and maintaining industry relevance, with manageable added complexity compared to a purely national model. 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We sincerely thank all individuals who agreed to be interviewed and gratefully acknowledge financial support from [Funding Agency], which enabled our research. REFERENCES Bennedsen, J., & Øien, G. E. D. (2023). Transnational Collaboration on LLL Between Higher Engineering Education Institutions: A University Perspective. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI). DOI: 10.21427/2F51-E932 Bennedsen, J., Øien, G. E. D., Foo, E., Goh, E., Roslöf, J., Sin Moh, H., & Gelten, H. (2023). An International University Perspective on Barriers and Enablers for LLL in Engineering. CDIO Conference 2023 Proceedings. Retrieved from https://cdio.esprit.tn:9080/documents/1717975939909-233_b_Final.pdf Bennedsen, J., & Øien, G. E. D. (2024). LLL at Universities – Enablers and Barriers. Nordtek. Retrieved from https://nordtek.net/lifelong-learning-at-universities-enablersand-barriers/