Conference Agenda

The paper outlines a sustained deterioration in the UK’s standing on the Academic Freedom Index, now ranking below countries not typically associated with robust protections. UK university environments have become less hospitable to controversial ideas, with free‑speech concerns increasing. Unlike many countries, the UK has no codified constitution and instead relies on common‑law traditions. Academic freedom was first defined legally in the Education Reform Act 1988, framed more as a limit than a protection. The document tracks how austerity, precarity, and political pressures have shaped academic freedom. The text examines the role of modern identity politics—particularly gender and race—in reshaping campus climates. It contrasts positive European interpretations of “wokeness” with concerns about intolerance of dissent in the UK, self‑censorship, and a weakening culture of open debate.
The Higher Education (Free Speech) Act 2023 aims to strengthen protections for academics and visiting speakers. It expands oversight by the Office for Students (OfS), introduces a “free speech champion,” and obliges providers to ensure environments where lawful speech cannot be suppressed. A detailed account of the protests against Professor Kathleen Stock at Sussex illustrates how institutional processes and campus activism can undermine academic freedom. The OfS fines levied against Sussex form a landmark precedent for enforcement under the new legislation. Survey data show a rise in belief that free speech is under threat, but also a growing student preference for safety measures, trigger warnings, and restrictions against “harmful” content. This tension between equality and free speech presents a practical governance challenge. The paper concludes that issues such as economic strain, political distrust, demographic tensions, and democratic backsliding are contributing to a national environment in which academic freedom becomes harder to maintain. Universities must therefore consider not only compliance but their wider societal role.

To explore the impact of disciplinary context on academic freedom, we develop a conceptual framework bringing together Becher and Trowler’s (2001) typology of academic disciplines with Kováts and Rónay’s (2023) model of academic freedom infringements. Empirically, we draw on the case of sociology during the consolidation of Hungary’s self-proclaimed illiberal democracy using 38 semi-structured interviews conducted with students and academic staff from multiple institutions.

Theoretical background:

Academic freedom has come under growing pressure, though the sources and modalities of constraints vary significantly (Maasen et al. 2023; Lyer et al. 2023; EP 2024). Existing scholarship demonstrates that threats to academic freedom correlate strongly with political regime characteristics (Lyer et al. 2023; Douglass 2021; Kinzelbach 2020).

While autocracies rely primarily on direct state repression, liberal democracies experience more diffuse pressures linked to academic capitalism, managerialism, and public opinion (Hao 2020). Hybrid regimes and illiberal democracies (Douglass 2022), such as Hungary (Bozóki & Hegedus 2017; Csáky 2020), present distinct configurations. Although they maintain formally competitive elections, these systems operate as informational autocracies (Guriev & Treisman 2019), shaping public discourse through polarisation, nationalism, and culture-war narratives (Gerő & Sík 2020). Rather than overt coercion, governments deploy “soft repression” (Hoffmann & Kinzelbach 2018) to limit academics’ capacity to act as independent public experts. Pressures manifest through centralised control, politically dependent leadership, vague legal frameworks, and the creation of parallel academic institutions (Bucholc 2022; Lyer & Suba 2019). Additional techniques include fostering self-censorship, restricting access to data, manipulating grant and evaluation systems, and reducing academic influence in governance through intensified managerialism (Kováts & Rónay 2021). These mechanisms generate chilling effects, constrain teaching and research, and curtail public engagement, producing a qualitatively distinct pattern of repression situated between democratic and autocratic extremes.

However, comparatively less has been written about the distinct impact of different academic disciplines on academic freedom infringements which is a clear research gap. We argue that in order to understand the vulnerabilities of specific disciplinary groups – such as sociologists – it is necessary to analyse disciplinary characteristics systematically as well and link them to recurring patterns of academic freedom infringement (Kinzelbach et al., 2020). To do so, we draw on Becher and Trowler's (2001) work on disciplinary character, and Kováts and Rónay's (2023) work on the layers of academic freedom and related infringements.

Methodology:

Using a case-study approach, this paper focuses on Hungarian sociology academics' and students' views to discuss both individual coping mechanisms and collective approaches to resistance to an illiberal regime's assault on academic freedom. We conducted semi-structured interviews during early 2020 with 17 students at two research-focused universities (at BA, MA and PhD levels), and with 21 academics (at different seniority levels) at five institutions. All interviews were analysed, using inductive thematic analysis. The project had ethical approval through the host institution.

Findings:

The paper makes three key contributions. First, it examines how both students and staff interpret broader structural transformations in higher education, including the implementation of the Bologna Process, massification, and shifts in funding mechanisms. Participants expressed concern over the commodification of education, the erosion of collegiality, and the marginalization of critical discourses.

Second, we analyze the strategies of compliance and resistance employed by academic actors in response to the regime’s “smart repression” (Kováts & Rónay, 2021). While some participants adopt pragmatic approaches to navigate institutional constraints, others engage in subtle or overt forms of resistance. These responses highlight the agency of academic actors, even within restrictive environments, and underscore the importance of solidarity and collective action in defending academic freedom.

Third, we explore how sociology as a discipline is uniquely positioned—and particularly vulnerable—within this political context. Given its focus on social structures, inequality, and power relations, sociology often challenges dominant narratives and thus attracts heightened scrutiny. Participants reflected on the dual role of sociologists as both scholars and public intellectuals, grappling with the ethical and political implications of their work.

The findings highlight two implications. Patterns of coping strategies seen in Hungarian sociology may emerge in other autocratising contexts. Erosion of academic freedom varies across disciplines, making tailored safeguards and targeted support essential, especially for soft, fragmented fields with limited political capital.

Academic freedom—enshrined as a fundamental value in the constitutions and legal frameworks of democratic states—is increasingly challenged by shifting geopolitical dynamics and evolving governance regimes in science and higher education. Drawing on recent sutdies prepared for the European Parliament (2024) and the European University Association (2025), as well as empirical insights from Lithuanian academics, this paper examines the question: How is academic freedom fostered, and what challenges does it face within Lithuanian academia?

The analysis conceptualises academic freedom as embedded in governance structures and resource allocation mechanisms. Key facilitators include research funding arrangements and institutional autonomy at multiple levels—university, faculty, department, and individual academic. Academic freedom is manifested in the extent to which academics exercise control over curriculum design, research agendas, methodological choices, quality standards, and recruitment of staff and students. In principle, Lithuanian higher education institutions operate within a regulatory framework that formally guarantees such freedoms. However, the degree to which these rights are substantively realised depends on organisational practices and performance regimes.

The findings indicate that academic freedom in Lithuania is shaped by a complex interplay between formal autonomy and managerial governance instruments. On the one hand, research council schemes and competitive funding instruments provide opportunities to pursue diverse research topics, and governance arrangements allow universities discretion in internal decision-making. On the other hand, performance-based evaluation systems and funding dependencies introduce indirect constraints on academic choice. Political priorities, institutional strategic orientations, publication metrics, and external funding frameworks influence the conditions under which research is conducted.

At the individual level, evidence from the Lithuanian APIKS survey and the authors’ professional experiences highlights the growing prominence of “publish or perish” imperatives. Academic staff must navigate performance expectations tied to publication output, often measured quantitatively and linked to career progression, contract renewal, and institutional reputation. In practice, this creates strong incentives to align research topics, methodological approaches, and publication strategies with the expectations of high-ranking journals and external funders. Compliance with funding rules—particularly those associated with European Union programmes and national priority schemes—further shapes the direction and scope of research activity.

A central tension emerges between societal relevance and metric-driven performance. Researchers who embark on ambitious, complex, and socially significant projects may encounter structural disadvantages if such work does not yield rapid, publishable results in highly ranked outlets. The time-intensive and uncertain nature of transformative research can conflict with short-term evaluation cycles and quantitative output requirements. As a result, scholars may strategically prioritise manageable, incremental, or “safe” topics more likely to produce timely publications. In this sense, the current system risks incentivising mediocrity and short-term productivity over long-term intellectual risk-taking and socially impactful scholarship.

Research funding constitutes a second decisive factor. While Lithuanian research council schemes provide formal opportunities to support a wide range of topics, competition for these funds has intensified. Increased selectivity may reinforce strategic alignment with funding priorities and thematic calls, potentially narrowing the scope of independent inquiry. Although external funding streams enable research continuity and international integration, they also introduce agenda-setting effects that shape academic trajectories.

Overall, the Lithuanian higher education context demonstrates that academic freedom is neither fully constrained nor entirely secure. Governance and funding arrangements create institutional spaces within which academic autonomy can be exercised, yet managerial performance logics—particularly the normalisation of publication metrics and strategic publishing—have become deeply embedded. Academic freedom thus persists in a conditional and negotiated form: formally protected but substantively mediated by evaluation regimes, competitive funding structures, and institutional strategies. The Lithuanian case illustrates how contemporary higher education systems reconcile constitutional commitments to academic freedom with accountability mechanisms that may subtly redefine its practical boundaries.