AbstractThere are widespread claims that the university as we know it is in a process of transformation. If so, what characterises the current modernisation processes of the university? The goal of this thesis is to provide another piece in the ‘puzzle’, finding empirical evidence from grass root level for the stated change processes happening. This thesis looks at a fraction of this topic through one case study – the University of Oslo, and one element of the transformation – the teaching function and more specifically, the role of lifelong learning. Lifelong learning become a central policy issue in the mid-1990s. Being significantly different from the traditional studies, lifelong learning provides new challenges both for the academics and the administrators. The question emerges, to what extent lifelong learning has become a core activity for the university?The thesis adopts a case study approach, using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods – analysing documents, semi-structured interviews and a small scale quantitative questionnaire. The combined use of methods was seen as appropriate to identify the empirical reality behind the plans and documental data, get information from various sources about the perceptions and experiences.A combination of resource dependency and neo-institutional theory is used as the theoretical framework, drawing on the characteristics of the university being an active manipulator of its environment and being an institution in a process perspective – going through processes of institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation. Olsen’s (2005) four abstract visions of university provide a background to identify the values determining acceptable change.The results of this study indicate that there is a variety of approaches to lifelong learning within the institution, from minimal interest in lifelong learning to well-functioning lifelong learning coordination and course portfolios. Lifelong learning is stated as a legal responsibility of the universities, but for various reasons, not all departments have been equally eager to engage. The role of the central unit, UNIVETT is to an extent unclear, but recent developments could predict significant changes in the near future. While there is great enthusiasm, there is also some uncertainty over the roles and responsibilities. The conclusion is that while one can identify some elements of the process, lifelong learning has not been institutionalised into becoming a part of the core activities.