Spring elections to new disciplinary domain and faculty boards

All members of the academic staff in a disciplinary domain have the right to vote, but far from all exercise this right – or even take part in the process. Each disciplinary domain elects an electoral assembly. This assembly then has the task of preparing and producing proposals for a chair (vice-rector) and deputy chair (vice-rector). In addition the assembly organises elections of the other members of the disciplinary domain board for the next term of office. Students can appoint three representatives, with alternate members, to the electoral assembly in each disciplinary domain, but they only have the right to attend and speak in the discussion of proposals for vice-rector and deputy vice-rector, not to vote.

Elections this spring for three-year period

The elections will take place in March and April 2026. The term of office is three years for both the disciplinary domain and faculty boards.

The electoral assemblies are appointed for a three-year period beginning on 15 September the year before a new term of office for a disciplinary domain board begins.

No later than 30 April in the final year of the disciplinary domain board’s term of office, a proposal for chair (vice-rector) and deputy chair (deputy vice-rector) must be submitted to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor must have the opportunity to meet the nominees before making a decision.

No later than 30 April in the final year of the faculty board’s term of office, a proposal for chair (dean) and deputy chair (deputy dean) must be submitted to the faculty board.

Most of the members of the disciplinary domain board are academically qualified. People can also be elected who do not belong to a faculty in the disciplinary domain.

Not a simple process

This sounds complicated. Shirin Ahlbäck Öberg, Professor at the Department of Government, could that be one reason why the level of participation in the process of electing new disciplinary domain and faculty boards is not always so high?

“Yes, no doubt, but also because the disciplinary domain may feel so remote from operations in the academic departments, deans in my disciplinary domain sit on the board ex officio. So no, I’m not surprised.”

The electoral process itself is not simple. There are actually two completely different electoral processes, which is most obvious in the Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences (HumSam).

“There are direct elections to the faculty boards in HumSam,” Ahlbäck Öberg explains. “Those of us who are members of the academic staff in the faculty vote directly. The deans then automatically become members of our disciplinary domain board. The faculty boards are closer to operations in the academic departments and I would like to see greater involvement there. HumSam has collegial democracy at faculty level and representative democracy at disciplinary domain level.”

However, although members of staff have both rights and obligations, participation in the elections is low. The organisation of the elections is difficult.

“What makes it extra complicated is that there are two levels and that the process is organised differently in the different disciplinary domains,” Ahlbäck Öberg explains. “In HumSam, the disciplinary domain board consists of deans who are automatically members. This is not the case in the other disciplinary domains.”

Different electoral processes

Moreover, the electoral processes are very different in the different domains. Elections to the domain level are conducted via indirect elections, in other words, via electors (representatives) in each domain. In the Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy (MedFarm), the representative democracy system applies throughout and there is no separate faculty level. In the case of the Disciplinary Domain of Science and Technology (TekNat), the disciplinary domain and faculty coincide. TekNat therefore has just one electoral assembly. HumSam, in contrast, has a voting procedure in elections to the faculty level that could instead be described as collegial direct elections, in other words, people vote directly via academic staff bodies at the faculty, not via electors.

“Where HumSam is concerned, the direct elections may perhaps attract more people than the election to the electoral assembly, because that feels more remote,” Ahlbäck Öberg believes. “We elect the members of the electoral assembly and they are the people who are responsible for the elections. However, I don’t believe the indirect election system exactly encourages involvement.”

Important election

A small increase in participation in elections is discernible, however. In the past, when people had to turn up in person to vote, participation in the elections was really low. Now there are new ways of voting.

“With the advent of postal voting and more recently digital voting, which was introduced in my faculty during the pandemic, more people have voted,” Ahlbäck Öberg says.

But why is this so important?
“It is an important principle that we elect our representatives ourselves,” Ahlbäck Öberg says. “This is based on the idea of governance from below rather than someone higher up picking out or choosing people to represent us or academic opinion.”

Ulrika Hurtig