Tesus sat down for a conversation with Peter Klysing, Head of Security at Stockholm University. We discussed how pressure, threats and violence affect academia, the freedom of research, and the sense of security on campus, as well as how the university uses Tesus's digital course Preventing Threats and Violence at Universities and Higher Education Institutions in its preventive work.
The university has to be open and accessible to everyone. With more than 30,000 students, conflicts and sometimes threatening situations inevitably arise — both between students and between students and staff. The classic case is disagreements about how a course is being run and about results.
A group of this size and diversity also brings complex situations with it. There are examples of students who have been convicted of serious offences, which can create unease even though they have served their sentences. The university is an open environment in which the right to education weighs heavily, and that limits what we as an institution can do.
Cultural differences can also lead to conflict — for instance in situations where norms around interaction and relationships differ.
Beyond internal situations, there are also external threats and pressures directed at researchers, from individuals, organised groups and foreign powers. Particularly exposed are research areas relating to politics, gender, climate, migration and issues affecting children and young people. This risks influencing both which studies are carried out and the willingness to publish findings.
The training came as a response to a concrete need from across the organisation. In parallel, the university has been working to build a more cohesive structure for safety and security matters, which is being developed continuously based on what works in practice.
The organisation is complex, and there's a culture in which too much top-down control isn't always welcomed or appropriate. At the same time, there's a clear need for support. The university therefore works to coordinate efforts and offer training, methodological support and risk assessment frameworks — with each manager responsible for translating these into their own area.
In a large organisation, reaching everyone is a challenge. The course is available on our website and is highlighted in newsletters. We also tend to present it when we visit the departments.
Right now, we're working on clarifying which courses are needed for different roles and remits. The goal is for all employees to have a basic ability to handle difficult situations. Some roles require deeper knowledge — for example, in connection with travel or with particularly exposed research areas.
The response is consistently positive. We've been out talking with the organisation about ongoing lethal violence and radicalisation — topics that connect to the ability to handle the more everyday conflicts and threats covered by the Tesus course. In that context, the training is well received, and our employees appreciate both the content and the format.
It's difficult to measure changes and outcomes from a training course. We can see that there's significant under-reporting, and that both subtle pressure, threats and serious incidents go under-reported. When someone who has been in an unpleasant situation has spoken to their manager or to us in the security function, they can feel there's no longer any reason to file a report — particularly given that our digital reporting system is somewhat cumbersome.
My assessment is that quite a lot has to happen before an incident is reported or escalated as, for example, a disciplinary matter. A degree of normalisation of unpleasant situations has taken place. What I would like to see is that, through a broad training initiative, we reach a more shared understanding of what constitutes a real problem and arrive at a common threshold. In practice, it comes down to employees being able to identify risks at an early stage, so that we can take action before things have gone too far.
It's important to be out meeting the people on the ground, to understand what their everyday work actually looks like, so that the measures we put in place are adapted to reality. We try to meet their needs rather than just imposing requirements. As a security specialist, it's easy to make assumptions and, in doing so, risk becoming an "administrative back-seat driver". If it's hard to get a message through, of course it's easier to write a policy document — but "we've issued a requirement that there should be no fire, but it burns anyway" doesn't get us very far. Threats and violence is a difficult subject, and if we begin by simply imposing requirements, it won't have the effect on the ground that we'd hope for.
We need to dare to come forward with new ideas and tackle these issues in ways that are both innovative and adapted to the organisation. It isn't only about traditional security measures — it's about working with softer values and understanding the environment we operate in. In our work, we try to reach out into academia and test what actually works in practice and delivers results.
Classic security work often starts from hard measures — locking, alarming, restricting and putting up barriers. But that logic doesn't fully apply at a higher education institution. The university must remain an open environment that welcomes people, ideas and collaboration. We can't close doors, refuse partnerships or hold back from publishing research findings simply because they may be perceived as uncomfortable. That would run counter to the very purpose of the university's existence. Our remit is therefore broader than just protecting premises and physical assets. At its heart, it's about safeguarding academic freedom. When we have a clear understanding of which values we are actually there to protect, the complexity of the task becomes obvious — and it becomes equally clear that standardised security solutions aren't enough.
We've identified the need for a dedicated course in researcher security, to strengthen the ability to make well-considered security judgements throughout the entire research process, from planning to publication, with a focus on the safety of both the individual and the team.
A natural next step, then, is to develop targeted support and training in researcher security, adapted to the particular conditions of academia and the challenges researchers face today.
