Dalarna University's logo and link to the university's website

Language policies in higher education institutions (HEI) in Sweden, as well in other Nordic countries, centrally involve ‘parallel language use’ of the principal national language and English (Gregersen et al., 2018). This approach attempts to resolve the conflict between two goals that HEIs have as governmental authorities: protecting and developing Swedish in compliance with the Language Act; and internationalization (SOU [Swedish government reports], 2018:3 & 2018:78), uncritically linked to English and economic goals (Hult & Källkvist, 2016). These policies likely inherit from the Language Act its impracticality and the possibility of compromising democracy (Landqvist & Spetz, 2020). Requirements to use Swedish in administrative meetings as prescribed by these policies, for example, could limit international faculty participation while overburdening Swedish faculty (Karlsson & Karlsson, 2020).  Drawing on theories of language management by different agencies from national to individual (e.g., Spolsky, 2019) and language ideology (e.g., Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994), our study critically examines how Swedish HEIs’ language policies may compromise or facilitate effective, democratic communication and participation, focusing on the application of the parallel language use approach to faculty activities including administration. We compiled nineteen language policy documents from HEIs who posted them publicly or responded to our request. These policies were coded for language choice, requirements, and support. Preliminary findings suggest that language requirements are often unrealistic (e.g. learning Swedish sufficient to participate in decision-making meetings within a year of full-time employment), with support to help faculty meet requirements underspecified. These policies, like the Language Act, exemplify top-down language management, often with inadequate regard to potential participants. The limited participant choice focuses on speakers’ preferred language, without considering negotiation of meaning to ensure mutual understanding. More generally, the policies exhibit a purist ideology that treats languages as separate entities to choose between, rather than as resources for negotiating successful communication.