‘Elite Study Programmes’ in an Egalitarian Context: Challenging Social Democratic Ideals in Norwegian Higher Education?

While excellence has become a main criterion in research policy (Ramirez & Tiplic, 2014; Sørensen et al., 2016), efforts and programmes reserved for talented students have been more contested. In the Nordic countries social democratic ideals of universalism and egalitarianism have traditionally restricted the space for formal differentiation for talented students. However, recent developments in Norwegian higher education policy could indicate contrasting logics in the understanding of elites and talents in an egalitarian context. While improved quality for all students in higher education has been a priority in national reforms, one Norwegian flagship university established new ‘honours programmes’ in 2019. Honours programmes exist in different forms, but in general the term refers to programmes at undergraduate (bachelors) level designed at a higher level and with a higher standard than normal degree programs (Wolfensberger, 2015). Research on honours programmes in Europe is limited, and mostly based on sociological perspectives (Kenway & Koh, 2015) or confined to aspects of admission, outcomes, and innovation (Huijts & Kolster, 2021). The new honours programmes in Norway have become popular among applicants and have expanded to include several disciplines, but they have also raised controversy among students, politicians, and other actors. The establishment of the programmes led to a lively public debate, which is somewhat unusual for higher education policy. We therefore analyse these public debates, and ask: How are honours programmes in Norway discursively constructed? The theoretical framework for the paper is based on neo-institutionalist theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and the literature on institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012). Higher education can thus be seen as a strongly institutionalised field promoting isomorphic features. However, a combination of institutional logics might also coexist (Thornton & Ocasio, 2018) and affect field-level cognitive beliefs, norms, and practices (Dunn & Jones, 2010). A combination of institutional logics could provide different guidelines for universities’ strategic development (Thornton, Ocasio & Lounsbury 2018). In this paper we focus on cross-cutting pressures between two field logics: persistent egalitarianism on the one hand and elitism on the other. We also include analytical concepts of boundary work and boundary-drawings (Lamont, 1992; Lamont & Molnar, 2002), which emphasises conceptual boundaries that are used to categorize other people, positions, and practices. The empirical material consists of webpages, public case documents from the university and background interviews, as well as news stories, editorials, and opinion pieces on honours programs in Norwegian newspapers from 2017-2022 (N=180). We analyse discourses of self-representations by the university and students, the character of honours programmes, and justifications for establishing honours programmes or not. Our findings suggest a distinct Norwegian form of honours programmes and contradictory institutional logics. While we find that honours programmes are justified as innovative, interdisciplinary programmes for ‘highly motivated students’ that contribute to more diversity in the higher education landscape, the findings also show that the debates draw on discourses of egalitarianism and anti-elitism. Co-authored with Svein Michelsen (University of Bergen; not attending).