Why was I interested in interviewing Tanja? She is a Norwegian media scholar and academic leader currently serving as Pro-Rector for Research and Development at Oslo Metropolitan University in Norway. In this role she oversees the development and quality of research across the university and chairs key institutional bodies related to research strategy and policy. Earlier in her career she was a professor and head of the Department of Media and Communication at University of Oslo and later served as director of the Institute for Social Research. Her academic work focuses on media policy, digitalization, and the relationship between technology and society, particularly how digital transformation reshapes media markets and democratic communication. Beyond the university, she plays a prominent role in national and international research governance, including leadership roles within Universities Norway and advisory activities connected to The Research Council of Norway.

The interview is compelling because it offers a rare insider perspective on how modern universities navigate the intersection of research, politics, and public debate in an era defined by digital transformation and misinformation. Through reflections on academic freedom, interdisciplinary research, AI, and the role of universities in democratic societies, Tanja explains the structural tensions facing higher education today—from funding metrics and technological disruption to polarized public discourse. What makes the conversation particularly engaging is its combination of personal intellectual formation and institutional leadership: it reveals how a scholar of media and power approaches the practical challenges of safeguarding research integrity, fostering critical inquiry, and ensuring that universities remain credible knowledge institutions in a rapidly changing public sphere.

Here’s our exchange:

Where are you originally from, and what aspects of your childhood there most shaped who you are today?

I lived my first years in Oslo. When I was seven, we moved to Steinkjer, a small town north of Trondheim, where I lived until I finished school and then moved back to Oslo to begin my studies.

My parents were young students when I was born. They were both politically engaged and often brought interesting discussions home. I think this contributed to my early belief that we can all make a difference—that each of us can contribute to change.

How would you describe your family environment growing up, and who were the most influential figures in your early life?

I grew up with my parents and my younger sister. Both of my parents had interesting jobs and were active in the community and in politics. They were—and still are—very important influences in my life.

Were there particular family or cultural traditions that played a lasting role in shaping your values or worldview?

I am not sure if it can be called a tradition, but reading was an important part of family life. My parents used to read to me every night. During summer vacations we often went camping in an old tent. We always brought one book that was meant to last for the entire holiday. Each night, in the tent, my parents would read one chapter aloud for my sister and me. Reading has stayed with me ever since.

What initially drew you to the field you chose to study, and was there a moment when you realized it was the right path for you?

My choice of study was a mix of interest and coincidence, as I think it often is. As a young student I had many interests I would have liked to explore further, ranging from environmental policy to migration and minority rights.

A cross-cutting issue for me was democracy and how important it is that everyone has the opportunity to contribute to shaping society and their own future. This is not only about voting rights but also about communicative rights and opportunities. Over time, I became increasingly interested in media and the role of media as infrastructure for democracy. From there my interest in media policy, media markets, and the role of new technology developed.

At what age did you begin working, and what did your first job teach you about responsibility or independence?

From the age of about 16, I worked weekends and school holidays at a local gas station. My colleagues included both adults who worked there full time and high school students like myself.

I learned a lot from being part of this diverse group of colleagues—people who were different but equal—and from taking responsibility as part of the team. Often at night I was the only person working and had to handle all situations by myself.

How would you describe your current professional role, and what aspects of it do you find most meaningful?

As Pro-Rector for Research and Development, I have specific responsibility for developing and monitoring research at OsloMet.

An important part of my role is facilitating and encouraging research so that we continue to develop as a research university. OsloMet has a history dating back to the 1800s but only acquired university status in 2018. Over the past 10–15 years we have significantly expanded our research activity.

Further development is crucial because our main academic areas—such as health, education, welfare services, and technology—are central to society, and increased knowledge in these fields is vital for societal progress.

Developing research ultimately means supporting researchers. For me, it is especially important that we have strong doctoral programmes and that young researchers are integrated into solid scientific communities.

Like all universities, OsloMet is part of a broader national and international research system. As Pro-Rector, I believe it is important that we remain well connected and actively participate in shaping the conditions for universities and research. I therefore value taking part in discussions and policy development on both national and international platforms to help create strong frameworks for research.

Both the internal and external aspects of my role are deeply meaningful to me. It is both a responsibility and a privilege to contribute to discussions about how we can build a better research system and ultimately produce better research.

How has your research on media, digitalization, and power shaped your understanding of the university’s role in a rapidly changing public sphere?

Research shows that the media landscape is becoming increasingly fragmented and that there is a constant struggle for attention across different parts of that landscape.

One implication for universities is that while we want research to gain attention and reach practitioners and the public, we must also safeguard research integrity. Research must be conducted and communicated in ways that ensure it remains trustworthy.

Trust is something we must continually earn. Research needs to be solid, high-quality, and transparent. Research communication that does not clearly address limitations, uncertainties, or funding sources can undermine trust. In a polarized environment where some actors actively try to weaken trust in science, maintaining integrity and credibility becomes even more important.

To what extent should a research university actively intervene in societal debates rather than observe them from an analytical distance?

I believe we need both approaches. It is important that researchers observe and analyse societal debates from a distance and develop new concepts and understandings based on what they see. This contributes to the advancement of knowledge.

At the same time, researchers should bring their knowledge into societal debates. Discussions about climate change, welfare reform, or other major societal challenges benefit enormously from being informed by research.

The best way to ensure that research informs these debates is for researchers themselves to participate. However, such debates can be challenging, particularly when they become polarized. Still, many researchers manage to contribute constructively by presenting the best available knowledge, being transparent about uncertainties and limitations, and thereby improving the quality of public discussion.

You may have noticed that the question asks what universities should do, while my answer focuses on what researchers should do. This distinction is important to me. I believe researchers should participate in debates with their research, while the main role of the university is to support them and provide strong frameworks for research communication.

How do you reconcile demands for academic freedom with increasing political and commercial pressures on research agendas?

First, I want to underline that in Norway—as in many countries—academic freedom remains strong and is not under serious threat. However, as the question suggests, there are examples of pressures affecting research agendas and results.

One type of pressure may come from economic interests. At OsloMet we conduct commissioned research for both public and private clients. It is crucial that such projects follow the same procedures as other research activities, that clients have no influence on the results, and that findings are made public regardless of the outcome.

Another type of pressure can come from politics. In some countries we see extreme examples of political interference. In Norway, pressure typically comes not from political authorities themselves but from public political debate. Researchers working in politically polarized fields—such as migration, gender equality, climate, or predator policy—can face strong criticism or personal attacks in public discussions.

In such cases, it is essential that the university provides support and protection so that researchers can safely exercise their academic freedom.

What are the most significant structural barriers to interdisciplinary research at Oslo Metropolitan University, and why do they persist?

At OsloMet we see a great deal of interdisciplinary research, but we also encounter barriers. As a researcher, I have been involved in and inspired by interdisciplinary projects. I know that this type of collaboration can be very rewarding, but it can also be challenging.

It takes time for researchers from different disciplines to understand one another well enough to work effectively together. Successful collaboration requires learning each other’s language and concepts, as well as understanding which research questions are meaningful within another discipline. This means that truly interdisciplinary research needs time to develop.

Another barrier relates to the way institutions are organized. Collaboration across faculties can sometimes be more difficult because of economic or structural factors. However, these are challenges that can be addressed through institutional strategies and policies.

How do metrics-driven funding systems distort research quality, risk-taking, and long-term innovation?

Funding systems that rely exclusively on metrics will inevitably become dysfunctional. This is why initiatives aimed at creating broader approaches to research assessment are so important.

Over many years there has been significant work at both European and national levels to develop better frameworks for evaluating research and researchers. These frameworks emphasize qualitative assessments and a wider range of criteria instead of relying solely on numerical indicators.

In Norway, Universities Norway has developed Nor-CAM, a toolbox with guiding principles for the assessment and evaluation of research and researchers. OsloMet is among the universities that have implemented this framework in our own competence assessment matrix, which is used, for example, in recruitment and promotion processes.

In your role as Pro-rector, how do you decide which areas of research deserve strategic priority without marginalizing emerging or critical fields?

At OsloMet we have recently identified four thematic research initiatives across the university. These initiatives will receive strategic funding and support and will serve as important tools for strengthening research in core areas.

The themes were selected through a process in which both students and staff were invited to contribute their perspectives. The four themes are:

1. Durable democracy

2. Health and care services for the future

3. Inclusion of children and young people

4. Green transition

We believe these initiatives will encourage more interdisciplinary collaboration, strengthen research focus, and build capacity for increased external research funding.

However, it is important to emphasize that these initiatives represent only a small part of our overall priorities. All professors, associate professors, and assistant professors at OsloMet have a significant portion of their time allocated to research. This remains the university’s primary investment in research, and making effective use of this time is fundamental to protecting academic freedom. It also enables the development of emerging and critical research fields.

How has the rise of misinformation and platform power altered the responsibilities of universities as knowledge institutions?

The active spread of misinformation and the undermining of truth represent serious challenges for society and for knowledge institutions such as universities.

On the one hand, distrust in knowledge and scientific evidence can weaken the role of universities in public life. On the other hand, the widespread circulation of misinformation makes it even more important that reliable knowledge institutions exist.

In this situation, universities must recognize that their role is becoming even more significant. For that to be meaningful, however, we must ensure that we perform our core tasks exceptionally well.

What lessons from your media research inform how universities should communicate scientific uncertainty to the public?

Communicating scientific uncertainty is extremely important. In Norway we saw strong examples of this during the COVID-19 pandemic.

During that period, health researchers and research institutions were frequently consulted by the media. In many cases they communicated uncertainty very clearly. They explained what represented the best available knowledge at the time, but they were also transparent about what remained unknown or uncertain.

Interestingly, public trust in science increased during this period. Later studies have confirmed that communicating uncertainty can actually strengthen trust in scientific research.

How do you ensure that research addressing social inequality and marginalization is valued on par with commercially oriented innovation?

At OsloMet we take pride in contributing knowledge that supports the welfare society. We are particularly well known for our strong academic communities in education science, health and social care, social sciences, design, and technology.

We collaborate closely with municipalities, schools, and hospitals, just as we work with businesses and industry. Social innovation is therefore an important dimension of our work.

Understanding how we can contribute knowledge that strengthens sustainable welfare services—especially in the context of demographic change—is one of our key priorities.

In what ways can universities prepare researchers to engage with policy-makers without oversimplifying complex findings?

At OsloMet, our research is frequently used by policy-makers as a basis for decision-making. Both state agencies and municipalities often commission research from our research institutes.

Our experience suggests that policy-makers are capable of understanding complexity and uncertainty. What matters is that researchers communicate these complexities clearly and in ways that are accessible to non-specialists.

In some collaborative projects, policy-makers are even involved as partners in the research process. This kind of collaboration allows both sides to learn each other’s language and helps ensure that concepts and findings are communicated in ways that are mutually understandable.

How do you assess the societal impact of research when influence is indirect, cumulative, and difficult to quantify?

Assessing societal impact is extremely difficult, and it is unlikely that it can be meaningfully measured through purely quantitative methods.

At OsloMet we are therefore exploring whether we can make greater use of impact cases or narrative descriptions as ways of documenting concrete examples of societal impact.

What tensions arise between internationalization of research and the obligation to address national and local societal needs?

Local needs can often appear highly context-specific. The Norwegian welfare state differs from welfare systems in many other countries, and even within Norway there are significant differences between municipalities and social groups.

At the same time, international collaboration can provide new insights, perspectives, and analytical frameworks that help us better understand local conditions. Comparative research can therefore be extremely valuable.

For example, welfare systems across Europe face many similar challenges related to demographic change and aging populations. It is a major advantage if we can learn from one another across national borders.

For this reason, I believe that although research focusing on the Norwegian context will remain essential, many areas will benefit greatly from increased international cooperation and comparative approaches.

How can universities protect critical scholarship when it challenges dominant political or economic interests?

Universities can and must protect critical scholarship, especially when it challenges dominant interests. For us to do this, I believe three factors are particularly important.

The first is the protection of academic freedom through law, as we have in Norway. The second is basic institutional funding that does not depend entirely on competition or external sources. This provides universities with a stable foundation for scientific activity. The third is the role of university leadership in supporting researchers’ right to be critical, even when their work challenges dominant interests.

Our responsibility is not to agree with our researchers but to ensure that they are able to conduct and communicate their research—even when the results may be controversial.

What institutional changes are necessary for universities to respond responsibly to rapid technological change, particularly in AI and data-driven research?

I believe universities should approach new technologies, including artificial intelligence, with both knowledge and curiosity. OsloMet is a university that develops new technologies, and we actively explore how emerging tools—including AI—can enrich educational approaches and improve research methods as well as administrative services.

At the same time, it is essential that AI is used in an ethical, safe, and responsible way. This requires clear guidance on responsible use and learning environments where both students and staff can develop a deeper understanding of the technology and the implications of its use.

Looking ahead, what risks must a public university be willing to take if it is to remain a credible and relevant actor in democratic society?

One important risk is the decision to prioritize and develop specific areas where we believe we can grow stronger. OsloMet’s thematic research initiatives, which I mentioned earlier, are an example of this.

There is always the possibility that some initiatives may not succeed or may not achieve our ambition of attracting significant external funding. However, this is a risk that universities should be willing to take if they want to evolve and remain relevant.

Has there been a book, film, or work of art that significantly influenced the way you see the world or think about your work?

As a student, I read John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice. This book influenced not only my sense of justice but also introduced me to a systematic way of thinking about justice and normative theory.

Rawls’ ideas have influenced some of my research and have also shaped the way I think about fairness in other contexts, including university leadership.

Looking at younger generations today, what gives you the greatest sense of hope, and what concerns you the most?

The engagement and dedication many young people show in addressing climate change and taking responsibility for the future give me great hope.

In this context, I am actually more concerned about my own generation and older generations than about younger ones.

If you could spend a full day with any historical figure, who would you choose, and what questions would you want to ask them?

I believe I would choose the Swedish author Astrid Lindgren.

She wrote some of the most beloved children’s books ever created, including Pippi Longstocking, Emil of Lönneberga, and The Brothers Lionheart. Lindgren wrote for children in a way that treated them seriously. She explored relationships between children and adults, addressed social problems, and introduced fundamental values through her fictional worlds.

Her characters still resonate with new generations of children, as well as with those of us who grew up reading her books.

I would love to ask her why she chose to write these stories at a time when children were viewed so differently in society, and what inspired her to challenge the norms of her time.

If you were asked to teach a class on a subject completely unrelated to your profession, what would it be, and what would you hope students take away from it?

That is a difficult question. Perhaps I would teach a class on contemporary literature, exploring recent novels and the social relevance of their themes.

My hope would be that these discussions might open a door into fiction for some students and help them discover how literature can provide new perspectives on their own lives and on the world around them.

If you could ensure that one human value is never lost in society, which value would you choose, and why?

Respect for the dignity of all human beings.

Humanity is facing radical changes. To name just ten: geopolitical instability, climate change, economic inequalities, technological risks, public health challenges, political polarization, resource scarcity, humanitarian crises, misinformation, and disparities in global healthcare access. If, in an imaginative exercise, you had the power to solve one of these problems, which one would you choose first and why?

Climate change. If we fail to address it, we risk destroying the fundamental basis for life on Earth.

However, the choice is not easy, because solving the climate crisis requires cooperation across and within nations. This means building trust in societies, avoiding destructive polarization, reducing economic inequalities, and promoting geopolitical stability.

What do you believe human beings owe one another, both as individuals and as members of a global society?

Basic human rights, as described in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

When you imagine the final moments of your life, what kind of news would you most hope to hear, and why?

I would hope to hear that humanity managed to halt climate change and that the world had become a more peaceful place.