In a recent review of papers on the use of institutional logics (IL) in higher education, Cai and Mountford (2022) identified 59 articles applying IL. They echo earlier reflections on the usefulness of institutional theory—particularly IL—in higher education, a field often described as complex and characterised by multiple logics (Lepori, 2016; Cai & Mehari, 2015). IL theory suggests that individuals and groups rely on logics—patterns of cultural and normative expectations—to make sense of, evaluate, and order daily activities (Haveman & Gualtieri, 2017). Thornton (2004, 70) defines institutional logics as a “set of assumptions and values, usually implicit, about how to interpret organizational reality, what constitutes appropriate behaviour, and how to succeed”.

Cai and Mountford (2022) found only six quantitative IL studies. Given IL’s emphasis on sense-making and social construction, researchers often favour qualitative approaches to identify logics and their manifestations. Reviews of the broader IL literature confirm this qualitative preference (Haveman & Gualtieri, 2017; Lounsbury et al., 2021). Nevertheless, quantitative methods—or combinations of interpretive analysis and quantitative modelling (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008)—are equally relevant, particularly for identifying patterns that extend beyond small-scale and context-specific settings. Our first objective is therefore to examine how IL has been applied quantitatively in higher education research, assessing achievements, merits, challenges, and shortcomings. Our second objective is to illustrate how quantitative methods can contribute to IL research. Although our study does not represent an ideal quantitative application of IL, it guides readers through key methodological challenges and aims to stimulate further research.

A review of nine quantitative IL studies in higher education reveals several interrelated challenges. First, echoing Cai and Mountford (2022), inductive patterning often produces a large variety of logics. While quantitative studies tend to converge on professional and market logics, there remains a risk that each research team identifies its own set of logics, hindering cumulative and robust theoretical advancement.

Second, distinctions between theoretically defined logics and their practices, manifestations, or instantiations are not always clear. Many studies claim to identify logics in higher education, whereas it would be theoretically more precise to distinguish between logics as cultural systems and the material practices or perceptions associated with them. For example, Kallio et al. (2021) and Mignot-Gerard et al. (2023) study performance management practices, which can be understood as instantiations of the market logic.

Third, logics and their manifestations are conceptual tools developed by researchers to grasp reality. They may be predefined prior to data collection (e.g., survey items) or emerge inductively from respondents’ answers and subsequently be labelled as logics or practices. This raises questions about how researchers present these concepts to respondents and interpret quantitative data. For instance, classifying respondents as hybrids—such as the ‘critical adopters’ of performance management in Kallio et al. (2021)—is ultimately a researcher’s decision and does not necessarily reflect whether respondents themselves experience tensions.

Fourth, quantitative IL studies have only tentatively attempted to explain logics by linking them to socio-demographic variables, with some exceptions (Shields & Watermeyer, 2020; De Jong & Kantimm, 2024). Finally, additional concerns include the deduction of complex logics from a very limited number of survey items (e.g., two items in Kallio et al. [2021]) and small numbers of respondents per organisation, as in Shields and Watermeyer’s (2020) study (N = 306 across 18 universities), which constrains organisation-level conclusions.

In our study, inspired by Shields and Watermeyer (2020), we examine how academics—specifically staff in Norwegian HE—relate to and make sense of institutional logics at the level of organisational units such as departments, research groups, and study programmes. Using a large sample of approximately 3,500 respondents, we address three research questions: (a) which ILs are identified by Norwegian academics; (b) to what extent groups of staff can be identified who adhere to similar logics; and (c) how socio-demographic characteristics are associated with different logics. We outline step by step how logics were defined and operationalised, how they were deduced from survey responses using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and how response patterns linked to socio-demographic characteristics were identified using a Gaussian mixture model. We conclude by acknowledging that our study reflects some of the challenges identified in existing research and by discussing avenues for further inquiry.

Despite decades of policy attention and a robust evidence base (Naylor, Baik & James, 2013; Bennett et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2023), equity in Australian higher education continues to be constrained by structural and cultural barriers (Bradley et al., 2008; O’Kane et al., 2024). The sector remains rich in pilots yet poor in sustained system uptake or transformational change (Bennett et al., 2023). This project investigates “no brainer” initiatives—obvious, simple, high-impact actions that are widely endorsed but under‑realised (e.g. first year seminars or universal design for learning)—and asks why they do not translate into routine practice. Taking a systems theory lens (Lai & Lin, 2017), we examine how governance settings, regulatory signals, organisational incentives, and accountability arrangements shape the adoption (or abandonment) of these low‑cost, high‑yield equity actions.

This presentation aims to surface overlooked, feasible equity actions; explain the organisational and policy conditions that leave them unrealised; and propose structural levers—within institutions, intermediary agencies, and government—that can accelerate equitable outcomes while strengthening public trust in the sector.

Guiding questions

1. What makes an equity action a “no brainer” in complex university systems?
2. Which equity “no brainers” are under‑adopted across the sector, and where are they blocked?
3. How do governance, funding, and regulatory settings enable or constrain implementation?
4. What roles should intermediary bodies (e.g., national commissions, regulators) play in creating coherent, trust‑building signals?
5. What minimal structural changes could produce outsized, durable equity gains?
6. What would enable attendees to enact one under‑realised equity action in their own context?

Methodological approach
We conducted semi‑structured interviews with equity practitioners, policymakers, regulators, and institutional leaders and undertook thematic analysis through a system‑change frame. Coding focused on (a) characteristics of “no brainer” initiatives, (b) patterns of partial or stalled implementation, and (c) the interaction between policy intent, organisational incentives, risk cultures, and regulatory requirements. Cross‑case synthesis using improvement science methods identified leverage points for adoption at institutional, sectoral, and national levels (Sabatier, 1986).

Preliminary findings
Participants consistently described misaligned incentives, risk aversion, fragmented accountability, and siloed expertise as system features that keep “no brainers” under‑realised. Competing priorities and diffuse objectives within universities create implementation drift, while inconsistent or weak policy signalling across agencies limits coherent follow‑through. Promising levers included: clearer strategic headlining of student equity; aligning performance frameworks with equity outcomes; embedding equity‑by‑design in routine assurance and planning; clarifying roles between institutions and intermediary agencies; and fostering cross‑sector communities of practice to normalise and spread simple, effective actions.

Contribution / Significance
The study offers (1) a theoretically informed framework for equity‑based systems change, specifying what constitutes a “no brainer” and how such actions gain or lose traction; and (2) actionable guidance for policy reform, institutional planning, and everyday practice. By diagnosing how policy signals and internal governance interact, the project speaks directly to the Forum’s focus on strengthening trust: transparent, coherent equity commitments—implemented through responsible governance and clear accountability—can demonstrate public value and rebuild confidence in higher education’s social mission. The presentation’s cross‑system insights will be relevant beyond the Australian context.

Engagement prompt
What is one equity action in your sphere that is currently under‑realised—and why? What single structural or governance change would enable you to implement it in the next 12 months?

Higher education institutions face precarious financial conditions worldwide and increasingly adopt market-oriented behaviors (Al Mahameed et al., 2024). A growing focus on external funding compensates for the reduced ratio of core funding resulting from rising wages and building maintenance costs (Castro-Ceacero & Ion, 2019). Consequently, institutional expectations for academics to secure third-party funding have intensified in order to sustain jobs and organizational resources (Adler & Lalonde, 2019; Al Mahameed et al., 2024), placing academics under growing pressure to generate revenue and maintain research funding independently over time (Adler & Lalonde, 2019). These developments are particularly salient in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, where universities are expected to face substantial reductions in core funding (Kraft, 2025). Although third-party funding is central to university financing and research performance in Germany (Schneijderberg et al., 2022), there is still limited understanding of how expectations regarding third-party funding are conveyed within universities and how these competitive pressures manifest at the individual level (Wilkesmann & Lauer, 2025), particularly in a context of increasing financial pressure and market-oriented governance (Al Mahameed et al., 2024). Against this backdrop, the study poses the following research questions:

1. How has third-party funding evolved in NRW between 2011 and 2022?

2. How does university management convey expectations to academics to acquire third-party funding?

Drawing on Resource Dependence Theory (RDT), organizations are conceptualized as dependent on critical external resources and as seeking to manage these dependencies in order to maintain stability and legitimacy (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). From this perspective, the growing relevance of third-party funding can be interpreted as a response to constrained core budgets and resulting resource dependencies. As RDT provides limited insight into internal processes, Scandinavian institutionalism complements this perspective by examining how institutional expectations are interpreted and translated into organizational practices, emphasizing that ideas are modified as they travel across contexts (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996; Boxenbaum & Strandgaard Pedersen, 2009).

Methodologically, a mixed methods explanatory sequential design is employed (Ivankova & Creswell, 2009). The quantitative phase analyzes third-party funding developments in NRW between 2011 and 2022 using Federal Statistical Office data and differentiates disciplines following Biglan’s (1973) hard and soft as well as pure and applied categories. These developments are contextualized through qualitative content analysis of publicly available state level policy documents issued by the Ministry of Culture and Science of NRW (Schreier, 2014). The qualitative phase investigates two purposively selected public universities in NRW with high third-party funding volumes (Campbell et al., 2020; Yin, 2012) and examines how funding related expectations are articulated and conveyed through document analysis and expert interviews analyzed using content structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2012). Expert interviews with vice rectors for finance (N = 2) and deans for finance (N = 19) will be conducted in June 2026. While vice rectors provide insights into institutional budgeting and performance evaluation (TU Dortmund, n.d.), deans for finance provide insights into departmental financial and personnel planning (University of Frankfurt, n.d.).

Preliminary findings indicate a sustained emphasis on competition, profiling, and third-party funding in NRW. Between 2011 and 2022, third-party funding per professor increased by 39 percent, yet funding remains strongly stratified across disciplines. Hard applied fields such as engineering and hard pure fields such as the natural sciences account for the largest shares, whereas soft pure disciplines such as theology and the humanities remain marginal, reflecting structural differences in funding opportunities (Ylijoki et al., 2024). The State Higher Education Development Plan 2017-2021 frames project acquisition as a key indicator of research strength and institutional positioning, while the Higher Education Agreement 2021-2026 presents core funding as stable but reinforces competitive instruments and savings requirements. From an RDT perspective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003), these developments suggest attempts to manage structural resource dependencies under constrained core funding conditions. At the same time, increased reliance on third-party funding may reinforce mainstream and short-term research orientations and contribute to threatening academic autonomy (Evans & Nixon, 2016; Leisyte, 2019; Wilkesmann & Lauer, 2025).