This article highlights the significance of professional and disciplinary spaces in the shaping of Learning Outcomes (Los) in higher education. It is based on empirical studies of three programmes (engineering, the humanities and medicine) at two Norwegian universities. The results demonstrate both similarities and differences in the dynamics of learning outcomes formation. In the humanities and engineering they were translated into learning objectives, closing in on course rationalisation and portfolio coherence. Whilst the focus in the humanities remained internal in orientation, in engineering, internal processes of implementation merged with quality assurance and external development processes mediated by the engineering profession. In medicine, the introduction and implementation of learning outcomes were mediated by prior experiences with problem-based learning practices. During that process, learning outcomes became oriented towards professional identity and conformity to international quality standards. In that sense, learning outcomes could function as regulatory mechanisms sheltering medical education from outside interference rather than as a tool for structuring learning. Within the framework of learning outcomes, professional compliance with external scrutiny through the display of standards has become more important, but also more linked to the university as an organisational actor. K E Y W O R D S disciplines ambiguity, higher education, learning outcomes, norway, professions | I N T R O D U C T I O NIn this article, we highlight the significance of professional and disciplinary spaces and the interaction of institutional and professional/disciplinary logics in the interpretation and shaping of learning outcomes (LOs). We ask: How are learning outcomes shaped in professional and disciplinary study programmes? As the Norwegian higher education 56 |

No abstract

Universities are increasingly expected to cooperate with society and the world of work to ensure relevant higher education. One example is the introduction of mandated employer panels, where external members are brought in to advise universities on study programmes. Building on research on third mission activities, this article examines employer panels' role in university governance through a comparative case study of two Danish and two Norwegian employer panels. The article employs a historicalinstitutionalist approach emphasising path dependency and embedded agency and integrates contributions from the welfare state and political economy literature. The empirical material consists of interviews with nine panel members, as well as documents from panel meetings. The article finds similarities in background but differences in the organisation of panels, with more specialisation in Denmark. The cases suggest that the panels can be understood as layers to established cooperation with the world of work, and the findings show an emphasis on shared interests. This is analysed in light of Nordic traditions for coordination, as well as a bridging strategy for university leadership. The article finds that university leadership can shape cooperation by managing recruitment, agendas, and reporting, but the cases also illustrate tensions and possible challenges.

No abstract