Response to interpellation 2024/25:481 on equality in research policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns equality in research policy and how sub-goals should be followed up. L believes that equality is crucial for the quality of education and research 1 2 3 4 and that one should identify and counteract structures and networks that hinder women in order to provide support so that meritocracy applies for real 4. L argues that it should not matter whether one is a woman or a man 4 and that they want to adjust the sub-goals for quantitative indicators 3. S criticizes L for proposing that equality be removed from the sub-goals two years ahead of schedule 5 and argues that equality cannot be left without governance 5 6.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me on what basis the government, in the research policy proposition, has put forward the proposal to change the research policy sub-goals. Linus Sköld has further asked me whether I assess that research has reached a sufficiently equal stage. Finally, Linus Sköld has asked how I intend to act to ensure that equality is a prioritized area in research policy going forward.
Sweden shall be a country where high-quality research, higher education and innovation lead to the development and welfare of society, strengthen the competitiveness of the business sector and respond to the societal challenges we face, both in Sweden and globally.
In December last year, the government submitted its bill Research and Innovation for the Future, Curiosity and Utility to the Riksdag. The goal for research policy remains fixed, but the government partially adjusts the sub-goals. Sweden shall be a leading knowledge nation and be among the foremost countries regarding expenditures for research and development as a share of GDP.
In order for Sweden to continue to be a leading knowledge and research nation, the government considers that equal conditions for similar work and similar merits must apply to women and men. If academic career paths do not rest on meritocratic grounds, doctoral and research positions become less attractive, those with the best merits risk not applying for positions, and in the long run, the recruitment base decreases.
The Government considers that equality within the higher education sector is important to ensure quality in education and for excellent research so that Sweden does not risk losing out on groundbreaking research findings of high quality.
Universities and colleges need to continue working so that talents, regardless of gender, choose an academic career. In order for an academic career to be attractive for more people, it is, for example, important with transparent job planning, so that both women and men are allocated sufficient time for the core tasks of research and education.
High-quality scientific publication is important for a researcher's career. The publication rate has in many cases consequences for promotion and the opportunity to obtain research funding. But studies have shown that women in academia experience poorer career development after they have become parents, which, among other things, is expressed in a lower publication rate in the years after the child has been born, as well as that women tend to leave the academic world to a higher extent than men. An equal workplace therefore also needs to handle issues concerning, for example, culture and the work environment.
The Government intends to task the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Council for Higher Education with analyzing gender equality at Swedish universities and colleges in order to identify quality risks for research and good examples of measures that promote quality in research and education.
The recruitment targets for newly appointed professors decided by the Riksdag in 1997 in accordance with the proposition Higher Education Management, Teachers and Organization (prop. 1996/97:141, bet. 1997/98:UbU3, rskr. 1997/98:12) aim to stimulate long-term and systematic equality work at all levels. An additional measure that the government intends to take is to task the Office of the Chancellor of the University with following up on the recruitment targets in order to further study their effects on the quality of research and education.
Linus Sköld (S)
Mr. Speaker! I asked three questions in my interpellation, which Johan Pehrson accounted for in the beginning of his answer. That is quite correct. They concerned the fact that the government has submitted proposals to completely remove equality from the goals of the research policy.
The goal stating that equality shall be a pursuit for research policy was established by the Riksdag eight years ago. In the proposal to the Riksdag, the government writes that it has conducted a review or an audit of the research policy sub-goals. But it does not report it. There is no report of the review.
It is proposed to decommission equality from the sub-goals two years ahead of schedule. When the sub-goals were decided eight years ago, they were to be valid for ten years. It is therefore two years left until their originally decided validity expires. Nevertheless, the government proposes to decommission the goal on equality already now.
Those who wonder what Johan Pehrson thinks about equality can go to the Liberals' party program from 2022. It states there: "Equality between the sexes shall permeate activities within both higher education and research." How can it then be that Johan Pehrson signs a government bill where it is proposed that equality be removed from the sub-goals for research policy? I cannot find any other explanation than that it is due to the cooperation with the Sweden Democrats.
Johan Pehrson's response, after he accounted for my questions, began with a Sweden Democrat talking point about meritocracy. The Sweden Democrats are of the opinion that one can leave this without political steering because meritocracy will solve the problem. It has not turned out to be true, even though during these years we have been focused on increased equality. So it was also for many decades before we established this sub-goal.
A review conducted by the Swedish Association of University Teachers shows that women are subjected to more burdens and have access to fewer resources compared to men. Women perceive themselves as being treated differently than men both in daily work and in the distribution of work tasks. This means that, generally speaking, they are subjected to an increased risk of stress and stress-related ill health to a higher degree than men do within academia. Leaving it without steering – or for that matter, not strengthening the steering towards increased equality – will therefore not solve the problem.
The account of my questions that Johan Pehrson gave in the beginning of his answer was correct, but then at least two of the three questions I asked were not answered. I would therefore like to ask what basis the minister lays this proposal on. Can he account for the evaluation of the sub-goals that has led to that the sub-goal on equality can be phased out? Does the minister assess that research has reached a sufficiently equal stage? Is equality sufficient? It is a yes-or-no question that is easy to answer. Is equality within academia sufficient today? And on what basis does the minister lay this proposal before the Riksdag?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! For this government, quality in education and research is central. Equality within the higher education sector is important to ensure quality in education and for excellent research. Equality is central so that Sweden does not risk losing talents, both women and men, who can contribute with groundbreaking research of the highest quality.
The government is now taking several measures. We continue with recruitment targets for the higher education institutions regarding professors. We have strengthened the assignment to UKÄ to follow up and further study the effects on quality. We have tasked the Swedish Research Council and also the Swedish Council for Higher Education to analyze equality at Swedish universities and colleges in order to identify quality risks for research.
Universities and colleges need to continue to work so that talents, regardless of gender, choose an academic career. In order for an academic career to be attractive for more people, it is, for example, important with transparent job planning so that both women and men are allocated enough time for the core tasks of research and education.
The problem is that we do not really know if the research has reached a "sufficiently equal stage," as Linus Sköld chooses to call it, because there are no good ways to follow up on equality from a quality perspective. The quantitative methods that we have access to do not provide sufficient knowledge about the effects of equality on quality.
In conclusion, I also want to say that for the Liberals, meritocracy is something we must guard. I assume it is the same for more parties in the Swedish Riksdag. The problem is that we have seen that women perhaps do not always come forward, even though they are naturally often smarter and more knowledgeable than many men.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I can pick up where Johan Pehrson left off. Meritocracy is obviously worth striving for, even if one is a Social Democrat. The problem is that there are hidden structures. The report from Sulf that I read aloud in my first contribution is titled *Med ljuset på jämställdhet – när osäkerheten överskuggar allt* (With the light on equality – when uncertainty overshadows everything). It is about what leads to an unequal relationship regarding power and resources in the work environment within academia. It is therefore not necessarily formal decisions that are made by Johan Pehrson, but informal power structures and hierarchies that affect women negatively when it concerns, for example, resource distribution, being taken seriously, or getting access to the right support.
The recommendations from the report mean, in short, that one needs to ensure that women and men in practice work under similar pressure and workload and that women and men in practice have equal opportunities to conduct research. The implicit conclusion that Johan Pehrson seems to draw is that we have an equal academy. It may look like that on paper, but in practice, we do not.
The conclusion to decommission the goal in the research policy regarding increased equality in academia becomes completely illogical to me if Johan Pehrson agrees with the description. How did he arrive at this proposal? He still has not accounted for it.
If there are not good enough methods to measure quality linked to equality among the quantitative methods and measures that Johan Pehrson has access to, I wonder why he does not develop an evaluation method that could provide the picture he desires and which shows whether we have a sufficiently equal status or not. He should do that before he removes the overall sub-goal on equality.
I cannot see any reason for this. Johan Pehrson does not state on what basis he is presenting the proposal. The question is posed to the minister specifically: Is this a sign that he makes the assessment that the research has reached a sufficiently equal stage? I believe that my questions deserve an answer.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! As I said earlier, the government has conducted a general review of the sub-targets and is making certain adjustments, among other things so that all sub-targets can be monitored with quantitative indicators at the national level. They must also be able to be compared internationally. The review also includes the sub-target concerning societal impact, where there have been problems identifying robust indicators at just the national level. The assessment is that there have not been sufficiently adequate indicators to monitor whether equality has truly been strengthened and whether the quality of research and education has improved. If we do not have good measuring tools, we cannot really understand whether this has been achieved or not.
I want to emphasize what I said earlier regarding which measures we are taking and the assignments we have given. For example, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Council for Higher Education have been tasked with analyzing equality at Swedish universities and colleges in order to identify quality risks for research and good examples of measures that promote quality, not least from an equality perspective.
For us, this is clear. It also appears in the bill on research and innovation that I have explained in the debate that equality within the higher education sector is important and crucial for quality both in education and for Swedish excellent research.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! That was a staggering answer. Since Johan Pehrson does not have access to adequate evaluation opportunities, equality is no longer an overarching sub-goal for research policy. I thought that was exactly what he just said, if one adds up the answers he gave. Then the orientation in the Liberals' party program that equality between the sexes shall permeate activities within both higher education and research is cast in a completely new light. Does policy developer Johan Pehrson, on the spot at the podium, also de-select equality from his own party program because he does not have access to adequate evaluation methods?
I have asked some very simple questions. On what basis is the minister basing this proposal? The overall review of the sub-goals is not reported either in the bill or anywhere else. Johan Pehrson must account for what the general review of the goals yielded. In what way did it show that equality is ready to be phased out from the goals?
I also asked if he assesses that we have a sufficiently equal stage for research. Is the research activity so equal that the goal can be phased out? What did the general review show? On what basis has the proposal been placed on the Riksdag's table?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! This is about achieving real development so that Sweden attains the highest quality in education and in research, which can gladly be global and excellent. In that case, equality is of course important. In the bill, and now for Linus Sköld, the measures we are taking to reach that are presented.
Linking equality with quality is reasonably fundamental within academia. Within the framework of UKÄ's various audits, equality is a very important quality factor. For Sweden to continue to be a leading knowledge and research nation, equal conditions for similar work and similar merits must apply to both women and men.
As I said in my initial response, there are structures, networks, and other things that affect and hinder women. These must be identified and countered, and we must in every way provide support so that meritocracy truly applies. Then it doesn't matter if one is a woman – or sometimes, for that part, a man. This is what one could measure. A good deal of the goals that we report on are otherwise fixed.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.