The working group comprised the following members: Grete Brochmann (coordinator), Michael Gentile, Aaron Ponce, Brita Langeid and Nora Celine Warholm Essahli (student). The composition of the working group was intended to reflect different categories of people at the Department, including both people with a Norwegian background and people with an international background, permanent and temporary academic employees, sociologists and human geographers, administrative staff and students.
The mandate stated that the working group should take into account the various frameworks set through national legislation and the University of Oslo’s general guidelines; identify the challenges experienced by the staff and their needs; and advise the management of the department on language use in specific common arenas, such as Monday lunches, staff seminars, seminars on specific academic topics, meetings of the Board and programme councils, etc. The working group was also asked to consult the heads of studies, with a view to ensuring consistency with the Department’s work on the new education strategy.
The question of a local language policy has arisen as a result of a growing proportion of international employees at the Department. The Department needs to ensure both inclusion of non-Norwegian employees and compliance with Norwegian law and the University’s rules with respect to: further developing Norwegian academic language; safeguarding educational programmes in Norwegian; and ensuring good communication internally at the University and with the rest of society. In other words, a balance must be struck between a number of at times contradictory considerations.
Political guidelines
Any local language policy must be based on the applicable legislation and regulations. As in other contexts, however, there is often a certain amount of room for interpretation, enabling local adaptations, if desired, within the framework of the overarching guidelines.
As a general point of departure, the Norwegian University and University Colleges Act assigns the universities a clear responsibility for maintaining and further developing Norwegian academic language (section 1-7). The preparatory works to this Act state that Norwegian shall be the main language at Norwegian universities (Proposition no. 108 to the Lagting (2019–2020) – the Language Act). The University has a duty to provide educational programmes taught in Norwegian and to ensure good communication internally within the University and with society at large.
At the same time, it is stated that “parallel language use shall apply”. The University of Oslo defines “parallel language use”, sometimes also called “parallel-lingualism” as follows: “Norwegian is to be maintained as the primary language at the University, at the same time as linguistic diversity is encouraged, with English as the main foreign language”. The underlying units have been delegated responsibility for deciding how these seemingly contradictory goals are to be met in practice. The Language Council of Norway has published some more detailed advice for universities and university colleges regarding local enforcement of the rules: Parallel language use should mean that two languages are used in parallel without one encroaching on the other. A defined strategy for language policy is necessary to prevent all academic activity from eventually taking place in one language – in practice English.
The University of Oslo has decided, based on the Act relating to language usage in the civil service, that the administrative language at the University shall be Norwegian. This means that the administration primarily operates in Norwegian, and that meetings of bodies such as department boards and programme councils, which are part of the faculty’s formal structure, are to be convened with case documents in Norwegian.
One problem with parallel language use is that it assumes that both language groups know both Norwegian and English – at least to some extent. Most non-Norwegian-speaking new employees and temporary employees do not have an adequate command of Norwegian and will not be able to participate in contexts where Norwegian is used. These two categories of employees will need additional linguistic adaptations at all times in order to be able to function well at the Department.
The Department’s approach
Through their employment contracts, permanent employees at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS) commit to learn Norwegian within two years. This is standard policy at the Faculty (and at most other faculties at the University of Oslo), but formally other time limits are possible. What matters is what is stated in the text of the announcement for the position. Rapid acquisition of Norwegian is not only considered important for teaching, but also for other administrative tasks at the Department, elected offices, etc. that are conducted in Norwegian and that ought to be shared among all the employees over time. In order to help newly appointed employees acquire (the best possible) Norwegian skills within a period of two years, the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS) allocates hours for this in the employee’s hourly accounts (for course participation and preparation). Several people question how realistic the two-year rule is – and there will probably be great individual variation. However, this issue was not included in the working group’s mandate. In a memo to the Department Board (meeting date: 24 June 2020), the Head of Department writes that the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS) has not seen a corresponding demand for training in English for Norwegian-speaking employees who struggle to function in a parallel-language context, although support for this is available.
The Department has not previously had a clearly defined or officially approved language policy. Instead, the issue has been dealt with on an ad hoc basis, and practices have developed gradually over time.
The statutory provision that Norwegian shall be the main language on the one hand and the rules on parallel language use on the other necessitate a delicate balancing act in practice. The lack of clarity in the University’s central language policy paves the way for a certain degree of latitude at the departmental level. The Head of Department’s note to the Board states that the reason the management wishes to discuss the language policy at ISS ensues from “our commitment to ensuring a good working environment for our international employees”. The Norwegian Working Environment Act requires that the employer safeguards the psychosocial working environment of all employees. However, the crux of the language issue is that in any workplace with an international staff, it is difficult to find a happy compromise where everyone feels that their working environment needs are always well met. Language is important, and feelings often run high – among both majority and minority language users. Moreover, ambiguous interpretations of the legislation, opposing needs, and dilemmas have resulted in the language question becoming a rather thorny topic at the Department.
The question going forwards, and which the working group has been asked to investigate, is how the department management and the staff in general can best navigate these complicated, contentious waters. We hope that a well-considered approach that is supported by most people will help create more stable expectations and defuse the language question.
Ensuring support among the staff – the main findings
In its mandate, the working group was asked to “obtain an impression of the different needs and interests among the staff that ought to be safeguarded and counterbalanced against each other”. The working group decided the best way to do this was to conduct a short survey among all the employees, both permanent and temporary, supplemented by a number of more in-depth informant interviews with representatives of the various employee groups at the Department. The main findings from the survey are presented in Annex 1. The following section of the report is the working group’s combined interpretation of the findings from both the survey and the interviews – in other words, our overall impression of what the employees think about the current language situation and what ought to be done in the future. Building on the findings from the survey and the working group’s own assessments, the report will conclude with proposed guidelines for the Department.
The main impression that the working group had after the survey and interviews was, firstly, that there is a clear majority (over 70 per cent) who believe that Norwegian should be the main language at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS). At the same time, a majority of the respondents find that there are tensions linked to the language issue at the Department, and believe that this matter ought to be regulated by the management. The language used in social interactions ought not to be regulated, but a majority believe that it is rude not to switch to English when someone in the group does not have a good command of Norwegian. At the same time, there are (perhaps surprisingly) also quite a few people who do not think this is rude.
Secondly, there is also clear support for upholding the two-year rule (84 per cent of employees believe this: agree completely or in part). New employees ought to learn Norwegian. This ought to be a natural consequence of choosing to move to Norway. Beyond these relatively clear findings, there is large variation in responses (i.e. frequency distributions).
However, two relatively clear dividing lines stand out when it comes to the correlation between variables: whether the respondent has Norwegian as their main language or not; and affiliation with sociology or human geography. A pattern (albeit not entirely unambiguous) can be discerned that the Norwegian speakers attach importance to maintaining Norwegian as the main language (with varying degrees of weight), while the respondents with a non-Norwegian-speaking background want as much English as possible. There is also a clear distinction (albeit with some variation) between sociology, where quite strong importance is attached to Norwegian, and human geography, where a significantly higher number of people hold that English ought to be used in most contexts.
With regard to the questions about language use in specific common arenas, it is possible to identify some (at times quite weak) tendencies: for example, it appears that most people think that research seminars ought to be conducted in English. The same also applies (to a lesser extent) to staff meetings. E-mail correspondence to the staff ought – as is the case today – to use both languages. The conclusion is agnostic when it comes to “informal events”. There is no consensus among the answers when it comes to the Programme Boards. The same applies to the Department Board, albeit with a slight leaning towards use of Norwegian.
The in-depth interviews with selected informants provided the working group with valuable additional information to the survey findings. All the employees acknowledge that this is a difficult question, where a balance has to be struck between many different considerations. Everyone stresses the importance of an inclusive working environment and that “internationalisation” must necessarily have some implications for the language policy. In general, nuanced views were expressed, on both sides of the main dividing line between Norwegian speakers and non-Norwegian speakers. Some English speakers underlined their need to practise Norwegian, and expressed understanding and support for some situations continuing to take place in Norwegian. Others were clearly frustrated and felt language was a major barrier, experiencing some situations in the Department as rude, discriminatory and exclusionary: “Default communication should be in the language everyone understands”. By contrast, some Norwegian speakers felt that everything was harder in English, that discussions were less nuanced, and that fewer Norwegian speakers participated actively: “Everything being in English will result in a poorer common environment for the Norwegian speakers”. It was also pointed out that the urgency of the need to learn Norwegian is undermined if everything is in English. Conversely, there were also some Norwegian speakers who felt it was important to operate as much as possible in English to ensure transparency in the Department’s governance and daily operations. Some held that Norwegian will eventually decline anyway.
Temporary employees are not expected to learn Norwegian, due to the shortness of their stay and high workload, and several respondents in this group reported that at times they felt quite left out. The temporary employees also showed great understanding for the fact that some things had to take place in Norwegian, and some respondents had suggestions for how the Department could “resolve” some aspects of the language problem through orientation meetings for non-Norwegian speakers.
Several people stressed that offering more teaching in English would have both pros and cons in terms of the students. It would make it possible to recruit more English-speaking students, but investigations suggest that many Norwegian-speaking students are uncomfortable having to speak English and therefore participate less.
A nuanced attitude to the situation was also found among the administrative staff, dominated by a pragmatic approach and willingness to cooperate: “The administration is committed to ensuring the inclusion of all employees and strives for a good working environment with a high level of service in communication with the staff”. Parallel language use is often chosen in everyday work situations, but some people have called for clearly defined rules to simplify the process. A major concern, however, is that the organisation is not dimensioned for a fully parallel-lingual working life. “The administration is not currently equipped to cope with everything being in two languages”. This is a capacity issue, and thus also a financial issue. The administrative language at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS) – and the entire University of Oslo – is de facto Norwegian (as stated in the job announcements), and the legislation and regulations that govern much of the work in the Department are available only in Norwegian. It was pointed out that meetings of the Programme Councils and the Board ought to take place in Norwegian, and that therefore a good understanding of the majority language could be a condition for election to these kinds of offices. In addition, it was expressed that it ought to be possible to ask questions in Norwegian at various gatherings arranged by the Department. It was stressed that while English is a well-established second language at the Department, it is important to remember that some parts of the staff have members who are not comfortable in English and hence risk feeling excluded if everything is changed.
The working group’s assessments
The motivation for the current report was partly to find out what members of the staff think about the language issue, and partly to formulate some proposals for guidelines for the management at the Department, based on the findings and the working group’s own assessments. The point of departure was that the language question is difficult and dilemma-ridden.
The working group is left with a mixed impression after its investigation. The language question clearly engages many people, and many people are frustrated – for a variety of reasons. There also appears to be a divide in the Department between sociology and human geography when it comes to language culture. It seems that there is significantly stronger support for English among geographers, including those who have Norwegian as their first language. At the same time, we are left with the overall impression that most people have a fairly nuanced view of the situation and feel that flexibility and a pragmatic attitude are perhaps the most appropriate instruments. Herein lies an acknowledgement of the fact that it is impossible to find a solution that addresses all the interests at the same time.
Nor does the working group believe there are ideal solutions to the language issue. The work we have done in this area has revealed the complexity of the matter and all the conflicting considerations to be taken into account. However, we believe the very fact that everyone has had the opportunity to report how they perceive the situation and what kind of policies they would like to see going forwards has been beneficial in itself. It is to be hoped that the process can serve to raise awareness in all camps, and that the discussions, which will undoubtedly continue, can take place in a more informed, nuanced way.
The working group would like to emphasise that there must be a balance – a mix – between Norwegian and English at the Department for many reasons. The Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS) aims to be an internationally oriented institute of high calibre. There will always be a varying number of new arrivals from abroad who do not know Norwegian and who must be included, both for their own sakes and in the best interests of the institution. Programmes should also be attractive to international students through teaching in English. Moreover, temporary employees must have an adequate range of tasks they can perform in order to fulfil their various obligatory duties at the Department.
At the same time, Norwegian is the main language according to the University and University Colleges Act, the language of administration is Norwegian, and it can also be argued that it is reasonable for the Norwegian-speaking employees to expect that greatest importance is attached to the country’s national language at the workplace, when this was also the premise at the time of employment.
In view of all this, and the somewhat ambiguous, perhaps even contradictory, results that have emerged from our investigation, the working group would like to make the following recommendations to the Department’s management:
- The main norm in connection with meetings and seminars ought to be: switch to English as the common language if there is someone present who does not understand Norwegian. In connection with seminars, it is best to be prepared for the language to be English as a general starting point. At the same time, it will always be acceptable to ask questions or make presentations in Norwegian – in which case, the chair ought to provide a brief summary in English. If a meeting is to take place in English, participants who are expected to contribute ought to have been notified about this in advance.
- The main norm for meetings of the Department Board and programme councils is that they will take place in Norwegian, and that case documents for the meetings will continue to be in Norwegian. It ought also to be a main norm that people who are elected to these forums must understand Norwegian, but that they can speak in English themselves if they prefer. In this context, the working group proposes that human geography, which has open programme council meetings, can choose to use English as its meeting language, unless all the participants understand Norwegian.
- Informal gatherings (such as end-of semester / year events with lectures held by Norwegian-speaking invited speakers, birthday celebrations, etc.) can alternate between Norwegian and English, depending on what the attendees are comfortable with.
In other social interactions, it is up to the individual which language is used, but everyone is strongly urged to think inclusion.
- The (non-Norwegian-speaking) temporary employees ought to be offered an orientation meeting on the main aspects of the management and administration at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS), and on the language policy each semester.
- A brief account of the language guidelines at the Department of Sociology and Human Geography (ISS) ought also to be included in job announcements – in addition to the two-year rule.
- It is not expected that all documents that are submitted to the Department’s administration and staff must be translated into English, but an English summary of important texts ought to be provided.
- All collective correspondence from the management to “all employees” must be in both Norwegian and English. In very long texts, it is sufficient (for capacity reasons) to provide a summary in English, with an offer of further details on request.
- The Department ought to consider conducting a survey on the language question among the students at the Department – perhaps combined with subsequent in-depth interviews.
Blindern, December 2020
Grete Brochmann
Michael Gentile
Aaron Ponce
Brita Langeid
Nora Celine Warholm Essahli
Annex 1: Tables from the survey