4. Key findings and learnings

The six PHEIs examined in the EDYNORA project illustrate a range of strategies for delivering higher education in smaller towns and rural regions across the Nordic countries. While each case reflects its unique national and institutional context, several commonalities – and differences – emerge in how education is organised and delivered. These are discussed in the following section. The cross-case synthesis is followed by a summary of key insights into the conditions that enable – or hinder – the success of PHEIs, concluding with lessons for both policymakers and practitioners.

This cross-case synthesis identifies key patterns and differences across the institutions, focusing on institutional origins and development, organisational models, modes of delivery, stakeholder collaboration and alignment with regional labour markets.

Among the six cases, the dates of establishment vary considerably. Nesna, for instance, dates back over a century, whereas others, such as HUSC, are relatively recent establishments (see Table 3). Like many other higher education institutions, their development has been significantly shaped by national policies of centralisation and decentralisation, as well as shifting political priorities. These dynamics have led to institutional mergers and changes in status over time. Simultaneously, local actors have played a crucial role in shaping these institutions. For example, HUSC was established at the initiative of local authorities, while Nesna’s reopening stands out as an inspiring example of a grassroots movement successfully challenging a national policy decision.

The cases explored exhibit diverse organisational forms, which can be broadly categorised into three main types: multi-institution campuses, campus branches of a larger centralised university and stand-alone regional institutions.

HUSC and Campus Jakobstad are examples of multi-institution campuses that illustrate innovative collaboration models, particularly well-suited to small-town contexts. HUSC, Denmark’s first municipally administered multi-institution campus, hosts programmes from two institutions within city-owned facilities. Campus Jakobstad similarly accommodates multiple institutions and disciplines – from music and fine arts to engineering. Unlike HUSC, it is supported by participating educational institutions rather than municipal authorities, but it nonetheless represents a strong model of collaborative and resource-efficient campus organisation.

Sundsvall Campus and Campus Nesna function as regional branches of larger institutions – Mid Sweden University and Nord University respectively. While Nesna maintains a strong local identity and develops tailored initiatives, such as a unique teacher training pilot, key strategic decisions remain centralised under Nord University. Finally, Högskolan på Åland and the University of Akureyri (UNAK) are stand-alone regional institutions, governed locally and operating with greater functional and strategic autonomy.

The EDYNORA case studies reveal a variety of education delivery modes, ranging from bachelor’s to master’s degrees (such as at Högskolan på Åland, UNAK and Mid Sweden University) and, in some cases, doctoral studies (UNAK). Most institutions have embraced hybrid and flexible models, shaped by the needs of specific programmes and enabled by digital technologies. UNAK stands out as a pioneer in flexible learning, offering all programmes in hybrid or distance formats, with 75% of students studying remotely. Significant investments in staff training, digital tools and curriculum design aim to ensure high quality, while an established network of learning centres across the whole country is designed to support access to education in local communities and foster ties with local employers. Nesna’s “assembly-based” model blends week-long in-person sessions with online and local group learning. HUSC serves as a flexible 24/7 study hub, offering full and hybrid programmes, as well as facilities for remote learners from other institutions. Högskolan på Åland remains primarily on-site but is gradually incorporating hybrid and flexible solutions. In contrast, while over 60% of teaching at Sundsvall campus is currently online, the university is shifting its focus towards expanding on-campus education to attract students and strengthen regional development.

Across all six cases, strong collaboration with public authorities, industry and local stakeholders is a defining feature. These partnerships help ensure that education remains locally relevant, responsive to changing needs and grounded in a strong sense of shared ownership among regional actors. HUSC stands out for its municipal leadership, with the local government acting not only as a funder but also as an educational co-provider. Other institutions also exemplify collaborative governance, often through advisory boards or formalised partnerships that integrate internal processes – such as strategic development – with active engagement by external stakeholders.

For example, Åland’s Sector and Higher Education Council and HUSC’s Uddannelsesråd serve as important platforms for engaging with the business sector, ensuring that educational programmes remain responsive to regional priorities. UNAK partners with the Association of Municipalities in Northeast Iceland on programme development, while Sundsvall Campus has launched over 70 joint projects in collaboration with the municipality and works closely with business networks like Bron Innovation and Samling Näringsliv.

Students also play a key role, including through NGOs and unions that foster vibrant campus life and community engagement. A notable example of civic involvement is the reopening of the Nesna campus, driven by the grassroots People’s Movement for Higher Education in Helgeland, which mobilised over 20,000 supporters. Such efforts highlight the vital role of PHEIs in their communities and the importance of locally rooted collaboration in delivering responsive and relevant education to the evolving needs of both students and local employers.

Common to all the cases is the strong connection between PHEIs and regional vitality. Both internal and external stakeholders consistently emphasise the critical role of these institutions in supporting local and regional development. PHEIs are often established with the explicit goal of promoting regional growth. Their activities reflect this mission – from addressing labour market needs and fostering a qualified workforce to mitigating outmigration and contributing to sustainable economic and social development. In the case of UNAK, this focus extends beyond its immediate region, reflecting a broader commitment to fostering regional development across Iceland. Some of the cases explored, such as HUSC, place particular emphasis on social inclusion, seeking to reduce social inequalities by expanding access to education for individuals who might not have pursued higher education without a local option, or for those unable or unwilling to relocate to urban centres.

A core motivation common to many cases is the alignment of education with local and regional labour market needs. This commitment is evident not only in their strategic plans and institutional visions, but also in practice – through participation in regional networks, industry representation on governing boards and the design of academic programmes aligned with local and regional workforce demands, particularly in health, welfare, education, business and technology.

In particular, HUSC, Åland and Sundsvall maintain strong, institutionalised collaboration with labour market actors. HUSC co-designs programmes like nursing, pedagogy and finance in close partnership with local employers and political stakeholders. Åland develops programmes in direct collaboration with local industries, such as shipping, manufacturing and hospitality. Sundsvall demonstrates high integration in ICT and engineering, although links to teaching and nursing are weaker. UNAK and Jakobstad adopt more differentiated approaches. UNAK, serving a national student base, is less tied to a specific regional labour market. Jakobstad exhibits strong industry links in business and engineering (via Centria) but limited opportunities in the arts (via Novia), due to weaker local demand.

While it is important to recognise that peripheral regions might have very different demographic, industrial, institutional and policy contexts, the EDYNORA case studies provide important insights into the key conditions that enable – or hinder – the success of PHEIs. The following section describes the most critical enabling factors and challenges observed across the six cases. Although presented under separate subheadings below, enablers and challenges often intersect in practice.

Strong collaboration across sectors and levels. Effective collaboration among public authorities, higher education institutions, employers and civil society actors (the quadruple helix model) is a crucial enabler for PHEIs. Institutions where municipalities or regional governments are co-providers – contributing both funding and strategic direction – demonstrate stronger and more strategic integration with local economies. The presence of both formal mechanisms (such as advisory boards) and informal relationships (such as personal networks) has been critical in maintaining regional relevance, responding to local needs and fostering stakeholder ownership.

Political support at national and local levels. Political backing – both at the national and municipal levels – is vital for long-term planning and strategic development of PHEIs. National strategies promoting decentralised education, such as those in Denmark and Norway, have created new opportunities for innovation and regional experimentation. However, political priorities often shift and the sustainability of such initiatives depends on consistent, long-term commitment. As a result, the lasting impact of these efforts remains uncertain.

Securing long-term and stable funding and investments. Long-term financial sustainability requires access to stable and diversified funding, including a combination of national and municipal contributions, formal accreditation and, where applicable, private sector engagement. Over-reliance on short-term project funding can undermine institutional stability and strategic planning.

Hybrid models, flexible programmes and the 24/7 campus. Offering hybrid, flexible, practice-oriented and locally responsive models of education delivery has been an important enabler. With Nordic countries boasting a high level of digital connectivity, even in rural areas, hybrid education formats have significantly broadened access to higher education and enabled students in both urban and remote areas to pursue professional qualifications without needing to relocate. However, to be effective, these models must be carefully designed to ensure high quality, foster peer interaction and provide student support. Tailoring programmes to the specific needs of local students – including adult learners, part-time students and those balancing work and family obligations – is equally important. A concrete example is the provision of flexible opening hours, such as 24/7 campus access, which enables students to access learning spaces and resources outside of standard hours.

Strong link between labour market actors and educational programmes. Robust linkages with local and regional labour markets are essential for ensuring the relevance of educational programmes, enhancing graduate employability and improving student recruitment and retention. PHEIs establish structured collaboration with employers through project-based courses, internships and participation in advisory boards. These partnerships help align educational offerings with workforce needs and increase the likelihood of graduates remaining in the region after completing their studies. Furthermore, they are useful platforms for exchanging labour market insights, curriculum feedback and student evaluations. Several PHEIs are currently analysing the possibility of implementing methods of “life-long learning”, such as upskilling modules and short-course formats, which may offer one promising pathway for more agile responses to these evolving needs.

Student engagement and support. While many peripheral educational institutions across the Nordic Region report that attracting and retaining students is a significant challenge, several of the case studies provide important insights on how to overcome this barrier. Some campuses have made deliberate efforts to foster a vibrant student culture and community, with the aim of enhancing the overall student experience – for example, by employing a student community facilitator. PHEIs appear to benefit when they refrain from competing with larger student cities and instead embrace their small scale and see it as an opportunity to build intimate, responsive learning communities. By adjusting to the needs of the student group, many PHEIs report that they are selected by students who prioritise smaller, more close-knit communities, accessibility and strong student-faculty relationships.

Limited local flexibility and structural constraints. A recurring challenge for PHEIs – particularly regional or satellite campuses embedded within larger centralised universities – is limited local autonomy in decision-making. These governance structures are often designed with large, urban institutions in mind, making them ill-suited to the scale, structure and innovation needs of smaller or rural campuses. As a result, PHEIs may face significant barriers in developing locally relevant programmes and responding flexibly to regional labour market shifts. Even institutions with more formal autonomy, such as UNAK, report difficulties in adapting to local needs due to rigid national frameworks that limit curricular flexibility and local adaptation.

National funding models are not adapted to small institutions. The economic models for higher education in the Nordic countries tend to follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach – emphasising scale, efficiency, standardisation and top-down governance, while often failing to accommodate the specific needs and potential of smaller campuses. PHEIs are particularly disadvantaged by frameworks that prioritise scale and standardisation over contextual and place-based relevance and flexibility. This is also reflected in funding mechanisms, which are typically linked to student volume or research output, disadvantaging small campuses with niche or low-enrolment programmes.

Frequently shifting political priorities. While Denmark and Norway are increasingly focused on decentralisation of education and development of rural areas – reflected in growing national interest in relocating and establishing educational opportunities in peripheral areas – the policy environment that peripheral educational institutions must navigate is reported as one of the largest obstacles. Even in contexts where decentralisation is formally supported, PHEIs report that the absence of stable, long-term political commitments has led to uncertainty and unmet expectations. Political decisions at the national level can abruptly change the future of such local educational institutions, for better or for worse. These shifts directly affect the economic foundations of educational provision, leading to unstable financial baselines, which hinder long-term planning and innovation.

Labour market needs are difficult for small institutions to anticipate and address. While collaboration with industry and labour market actors is robust, the case studies reveal that small institutions rarely manage to meet fully the diverse and rapidly evolving needs of local labour market actors. In many regions, labour markets are fragmented or small, making it particularly difficult to offer a comprehensive range of programmes that align with demand across sectors, such as health, welfare, education, business and technology. This mismatch is especially evident in specialised or creative fields, where job opportunities are limited regardless of institutional efforts. As a result, PHEIs are often faced with the near-impossible task of providing a very broad spectrum of programmes to satisfy local needs – a challenge that is, in many cases, unfeasible. Limited resources and scale often restrict their ability to provide interdisciplinary or varied educational programmes, which can reduce their attractiveness to prospective students and diminish their capacity to respond effectively to regional skill demands.

While advisory boards, networks and partnerships are established to ensure that local educations “are responsive to changing needs of the local labour market”, the case studies highlight how difficult this task is in practice. Among the reasons are rapid shifts in local labour market needs, fluctuating number of students in the nearby area, along with limited resources and knowledge. Several case studies highlight difficulties in projecting and analysing future needs, as well as in providing high-quality educational programmes that can be adjusted to shifting demands. Additionally, even where programmes are well-aligned, smaller labour markets often lack sufficient internship placements and employment opportunities, which can hinder graduate retention.

Designing educational programmes tailored to local labour market needs requires highly flexible and responsive models of provision – a challenge that persists in Nordic countries outside the largest educational centres.

Provision of hybrid education might undermine a vibrant physical campus life. While hybrid models of education delivery offer significant benefits in terms of accessibility and flexibility, they often result in lower levels of campus engagement, which can weaken students’ sense of connection to the institution and the local community and unintentionally diminish campus life. This is particularly problematic in smaller towns, where attracting and retaining young people is already challenging due to limited local career opportunities after graduation and ongoing outmigration to larger cities.

Place attractiveness and fluctuating student numbers. Place attractiveness for students – such as access to affordable student housing, a vibrant campus environment and the overall appeal of the surrounding area – plays an important role in student retention and engagement. However, these conditions are challenging for many PHEIs to fulfil. For instance, housing that is affordable for students is often difficult to plan for in smaller urban areas, where the number of students often fluctuates. One case study referred to this as the “ketchup effect” of opening new programmes: in the first couple of years, students from various cohorts enrol, but the initial interest wanes over time and the student pool is depleted, making it difficult to sustain an active and attractive campus life.

Dependence on key individuals makes PHEIs vulnerable. It is evident in some of the case studies that the establishment and continued existence of PHEIs – particularly small institutions or campuses – are often highly dependent on a few individuals and their personal networks. These actors frequently play pivotal roles in maintaining strategic partnerships by securing funding and navigating institutional or political landscapes. While such leadership can be a strong asset, it also introduces a significant vulnerability. Many small campuses and institutions are vulnerable to changes in personnel, which can lead to fundamental and rapid changes in crucial organisational relationships and coordination. Such dependence highlights the importance of developing shared leadership models to strengthen continuity, reduce risk and build long-term resilience.

Based on the EDYNORA case studies, the section below presents key Nordic-level learnings from the interviews and practical recommendations for policymakers and practitioners working to strengthen the role and success of PHEIs across the Nordic Region.  

Recognise and support the strategic role of PHEIs in regional development. While PHEIs may incur higher costs compared to other types of institutions, they are uniquely positioned to address local labour market needs, reduce social inequalities, and enhance the attractiveness of regions. It is crucial that policymakers acknowledge their distinctive contributions and ensure adequate, long-term support to enable PHEIs to fulfil their role as drivers of regional development.

Enable local flexibility to enhance local responsiveness. Introduce more context-sensitive regulations that allow PHEIs to adapt to regional needs, including faster approval of programmes and flexible delivery formats. This would allow for prompter responses to labour market needs, evolving industries and demographic shifts.

Enhance forecasting and mapping of workforce needs at both national and regional levels, covering all levels of education, including vocational training. This is particularly important in light of the rapidly changing nature of work, the demands of the green transition and other emerging societal and technological shifts.

Ensure long-term and stable political support, as its absence may jeopardise institutional stability and hinder strategic planning. Recognise PHEIs as key actors in advancing national and regional priorities, such as labour market needs, lifelong learning and territorial cohesion.

Develop funding models for PHEIs that reflect regional realities. Move beyond performance metrics based on scale and research output. Adjust evaluation metrics to reflect PHEIs’ broader contributions (such as social inclusion and reduced outmigration). Provide differentiated funding for low-enrolment but vital programmes critical to local development.

Improve place attractiveness. By supporting student housing, transport and cultural offerings, municipalities and regions can contribute directly to recruitment and retention. Factors such as affordable housing, a vibrant cultural life and overall quality of place are increasingly important for attracting and retaining students.

Leverage the potential of hybrid and flexible models without compromising quality. These models can expand access to education and enable students to remain in their communities, but maintaining high quality is essential. This requires sustained investment in staff training, digital tools, and curriculum design. 

Maintain on-site presence where feasible. While hybrid and flexible models can broaden access and participation, physical learning environments play a vital role in fostering social interaction and campus life. These are key factors for student well-being, retention, and recruitment.

Turn scale into an advantage, not a limitation. Smaller institutions can offer close student-faculty relationships, personalised learning and community-oriented environments – distinct strengths that should be promoted as unique selling points. Fostering a strong sense of community and student engagement on smaller campuses can enhance the overall student experience and support retention.

Co-develop programmes with employers and public authorities, with a focus on future skill needs. Expand work-integrated learning through internships, industry projects and real-life assignments to attract students and help retain talent in the region.

Share resources through multi-institutional campuses. Developing shared campuses can strengthen infrastructure, expand educational offerings and increase the attractiveness of institutions for both students and employers.

Build structured, long-term partnerships with regional actors. Establishing advisory boards, networks and joint planning processes with employers, municipalities and NGOs helps embed institutions within the regional ecosystem and fosters a sense of local ownership. At the same time, encouraging bottom-up initiatives and community-driven projects can further enhance engagement and responsiveness to local needs.

Think holistically about the student experience. Enhance student life through initiatives such as community facilitators, alumni networks and mixed-use campus spaces. Actively involve students in shaping their own experience – starting by asking what they need. A supportive, engaging environment is key to retention, well-being and academic success.

Clarify strategic goals and redefine success. Move beyond vague goals like ”contributing to regional development growth” and “attracting more students”. Instead, develop strategies that are responsive and sensitive to fluctuating student numbers, changing policy landscapes and evolving regional needs.

Act “global” – think locally, connect globally. Combine a strong local perspective with a global outlook. International partnerships and research collaborations can enrich educational programmes, enhance institutional capacity and bring new knowledge to regional contexts. Where relevant, these global connections also benefit local economies and business ecosystems.