Tatte invited all members standing as candidates in the Academic Board elections to introduce themselves. We asked them four questions:
- Who are you?
- What does university democracy mean to you?
- What, in your opinion, are the most important challenges and opportunities related to the university’s operations during the four-year period of the Academic Board’s term 2026-2029?
- How will you as a future Academic Board member promote the interests of the researchers, teachers, administrative staff and students?
Below are the introductions (in alphabetical order) of the candidates who responded to our invitation. They are all part of the University Democracy electoral alliance.
Marjaana Jones (candidate number 25)
I’m Marjaana Jones and work as a university instructor in the unit of health sciences. I completed my PhD in health and social policy in 2021 and since then I’ve been working as a postdoctoral researcher and a teacher. I completed my prior studies in Tampere and in the UK, where I lived for about ten years. In my research, I’m particularly interested in the evolving relationships between health services and their users. I’m also involved in the Democracy Research Network at Tampere University, and the theme of participation has played a central role in my research.
To me, university democracy means open dialogue and transparent decision-making processes, as well as ensuring that university staff and students have genuine opportunities to be heard and to influence decisions that affect us all. At a time when academic freedom is under threat in many ways, it is especially important to defend university democracy and the value of research-based knowledge.
Key challenges in academic work include uncertainties related to funding and career paths, as well as workload pressures. The Academic Board can influence working conditions, the organisation of work, and promote inclusive decision-making. Students are expected to make decisions about their career paths and study options early on and balance their finances whilst also being expected to graduate within strict timelines. While the Board cannot influence everything, it can create clear and flexible study pathways, improve accessibility, review student selection criteria, and make strategic decisions that support wellbeing. Additionally, new technologies will also reshape teaching and research. These require guidance, and advice on how to use them effectively and sustainably.
I aim to contribute to making university career paths more stable and ensuring that workloads across different staff groups are reasonable. I consider the work of the university’s skilled support staff to be of primary importance, as it enables high-quality research and teaching. As a university instructor, I’m deeply committed to ensuring that the education we provide is of high quality, accessible, critical, and based on the latest research.
You can follow my campaigning and my day-to-day work on Instagram: @tohtori.jones
Mikko Poutanen (candidate number 31)
Greetings! I am Mikko Poutanen, a postdoctoral (grant) researcher at the Faculty of Management and Business under the degree program for politics. I am a candidate in group 2, meaning researchers, teachers and other staff, as can be gathered from the job title. Why did I decide to put myself forth as a candidate? Partially because I have been and am engaged in research in higher education policy. My current project, UNIDEMO, researches university democracy and self-governance.
In part I wanted to put myself forth because ever since I had come back to the university from the corporate sector, I have been disconcerted about all the changes in Finnish higher education. Although change is intrinsic to science, I have seen the university organization develop characteristics that are not always in the best interests of the university community.
In other words, my motivation is born out of a mixture of personal research interest and experience. I genuinely believe that university autonomy is an integral part of academic freedom – freedom to research and teach. For me, university democracy, in turn, means communal participation and capacity to influence decision-making but also taking communal responsibility. Participation in decision-making must be genuine and meaningful.
The main challenges facing Tampere University relate to the difficult circumstances that we find ourselves in. Economic resources are scarce, attacks on academic freedom are increasing, and academics feel increasingly pressured to manage their work. The current strain of academic management, which centralizes power and moves it upward in the organization is not, to me, the best way to manage an organization filled to the brim with expert knowledge. Academic knowhow should be reflected better in managerial practice and decision-making moved downward in the organization.
As a grant researcher, I feel one of my responsibilities on the academic board include improving the status of grant researchers in the university. I also want to see progress toward more predictable academic careers for younger academics.
I am delighted to know I won’t have to go at it alone. As the program for the University Democracy (Yliopistodemokratia) electoral list states, communal autonomy is an issue of communal responsibility. All insights into improving the way the university operates are welcome, but the university community deserves the chance to determine the conditions in which to best do their work. This is a key issue to bring forward on the academic board. I hope that the interaction between the academic and university boards could improve, but also that there would be more interaction between the academic board and the university community. As a political scientist, the last thing I want to add is that disagreeing, in respectful terms, is nothing to be avoided. Negotiating is an integral part of university democracy.
Derek Ruez (candidate number 32)
I am an Academy Research Fellow in the Unit of Administrative Studies, and I am proud to be running as part of the University Democracy electoral alliance.
University democracy is both the foundation and the promise of the university community. I believe that those who are affected by decisions should have a voice in them, and I think this becomes especially imperative in a university context where the missions of research and higher education depend on the expertise and autonomy of community members. My views on university democracy are further outlined in a recent blog post: University democracy is for everyone!
The university faces a challenging environment. More and more is being demanded of universities, but the level of resources does not match the level of the demands. In response, there are likely to be pressures to move toward tuition fees for studies and/or to overburden staff with unsustainable workloads, both of which must be resisted. Finland’s precipitous drop in international rankings of academic freedom is another huge challenge. Tampere University must meet these challenge head on and make a robust public case for the importance of the university and the contributions of basic research across the broad range of fields represented at the university.
My priorities as a member of the Tampere University Academic Board would be advocating for 1) decision making that is democratic, inclusive, and close to the university community, 2) institutional commitment to the university’s researchers and teachers, in the form of secure employment for staff and good policies for grant researchers, and 3) a university that makes space for critique, solidarity, and support for human rights.
Paula Silvén (candidate number 34)
I am Paula Silvén, a doctoral researcher in higher education policy (grant researcher) from the Faculty of Education and Culture. I work in the UNIDEMO project, where we study university democracy and self-governance. I also serve as Vice Chair of the Union of Research Professionals, and in this role, I am actively involved in higher education policy and the development of working conditions in universities at the national level.
My view of ideal university democracy follows the so-called “old school” perspective, where decision-making in universities should occur from the bottom up—meaning that faculty councils would have most of the decision-making power. The current model, in which faculties often act as rubber stamps, is a mockery of university democracy, and we must do everything we can to reverse this trend.
The academic board must apply pressure to open up our university’s current administrative rules (johtosääntö). These regulations must be revised so that faculty councils get more authority over all matters concerning the faculties. Changing the administrative rules is really important so that genuine university democracy can take place at our university.
I strongly advocate for improving the position of grant-funded researchers. We are doing equally important work at our university as all other researchers, but under much poorer conditions. We should follow the example of the University of Eastern Finland, where grant-funded researchers have been offered a 10% employment contract.
I will fight to ensure that power is returned to the university community. I have extensive experience in advocacy work in student politics, trade union, and party politics, and I believe this will be valuable in negotiation situations. I have courage to raise uncomfortable issues and my persistence as a negotiator. By voting for me, you vote for more academic rebellion to the academic board!
Tuomas Tervasmäki (candidate number 36)
My name is Tuomas Tervasmäki, and I am a postdoctoral researcher working on two research projects, one in the Unit of Education (EDU) and the other in the Unit of Social Research (SOC). My work focuses on politics of education, including the Tampere3 university merger and higher education and science policy. I’m currently a member of the board of Tampere University Association of Researchers and Teachers (TATTE) and previously I served as a member of the EDU Faculty Council and deputy shop steward from 2018 to 2021.
For me, university democracy means autonomy and self-governance for the university community, i.e., the university community makes decisions concerning itself based on tripartite decision-making. Democratic governance also involves promoting democratic ethos, as a functioning democracy requires citizens who are capable of democratic processes, multi-perspective discussion, argumentation, collective thinking, and dissent, and who are motivated to promote these.
Based on our research group’s study (e.g., Kuusela et al. 2019), we know that direct influence and participation in decision-making are very important principles for members of the Tampere University community, but the management system does not sufficiently support their implementation. Strengthening the community’s voice and tripartite opportunities to influence, as well as the university’s role in democratic civic education, are key issues for the upcoming term of the Academic Board that I intend to promote.