| dc.description.abstract | This study covers the discourse for and against sanctioning Russian universities in Norway, in the aftermath of the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict. The issue of sanctions is both a political question, but also, with regard to the university, a question about the purpose and role of the university. What are the limits of political interventions into the university? To what extent is the university a site beyond political strife? Such questions are implicit in the debate about whether Russian universities should be sanctioned or not. Using a discourse analysis and Olsen’s theory about the visions of the university, we explore the pro-sanction arguments, articulated from what can be best described as a post-Humboldtian perspective, and the anti-sanction arguments, articulated from what can be best described as a Humboldtian perspective. These two perspectives clash, not only with regard to the issue of sanctions, but with regard to the question of what the university is and what it should be. The Humboldtian vision underpinning anti-sanction articulations proclaim that the university best serves humanity and the humanistic ideals the post-Humboldtian vision defends by enabling international collaboration and academic freedom for all scholars, regardless of where they work and study. The post-Humboldtian vision is based on a different logic, which support the concept of academic freedom for all, while also proclaiming that it has responsibilities in the face of a global crisis, which means, effectively, participating in political strife in an explicit manner. The study explores these two positions and seeks to move beyond the issue of sanctions so to better explore what the two discourses say about the university, and what this means. Analytically, we use an intertextual strategy to explore the link between texts pro- and anti-sanction, and we explore the signs used to give meaning to the topic at hand. | eng |