Conference Agenda

This paper is a critical reflection on a chapter from my EdD thesis, entitled Developing a sense of self-in-the-world: staff and student narratives from a post-1992 university in the North of England, completed in 2018. The chapter in question, Reflective Narrative, provides a reflection on my personal and professional development gained throughout the research process and particularly through the co-construction of the narratives with my student participants, which were framed around a Freirean-inspired dialogical approach (Freire, 2000). Meanwhile this paper looks at my ongoing personal and professional learning in the context of internationalisation of higher education, and specifically at how this has been influenced by societal change at local and global level. Change which has impacted my thinking include the global protests in support of Black Lives Matter (BLM) which followed the killing of George Floyd in the USA in 2020 which has brought questions of race to the fore and energised the calls for decolonisation requiring many of us question our ‘white privilege’, the covid 19 pandemic which disrupted mobility, which – rightly or wrongly- was so central to internationalisation, and the effects of Brexit and the ‘levelling up’ agenda which is important to a post 1992 university where many students are from underrepresented backgrounds, and which is committed to regional development.

My study was framed by internationalisation at home (Beelen and Jones, 2015). Here, the focus on ‘domestic environments’, ‘all students’ overlaps with the wider issues of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI). The emphasis is on the curriculum rather than mobility as a more equitable way of achieving desired outcomes. The synergy was recognised by Caruana and Ploner (2010) yet it has been cast into the spotlight in recent years, not least by the BLM protests which have exposed racial inequalities in UK society including higher education (Advance HE, 2021). The intersections between internationalisation and EDI are being explored in the literature, notably within Critical Internationalisation Studies (Stein, 2021) and Inclusive Internationalisation (De Mol and Perez-Encinas, 2022). Within Internationalisation at Home, Kim (2021) looks at the identities of ‘home’ students through an intersectional lens to identify invisible social inequalities which might create barriers between them. However, this is a new area of research, and many questions remain at both a theoretical level, and in practice where conversations between university teams leading on policy in these areas remain in silos (Jones and Stein, 2022).

Wimpenny et al (2022) point to the tensions between internationalisation and decolonisation from the perspectives of three individual academics across three universities in Europe. Drawing on Sanderson’s (2004) process model of ‘internationalisation of the self’ they assert that changes to the curriculum start with changes in the individual. In line with Wimpenny et al (2002), this paper takes the individual as the starting point for curriculum change. It critically analyses my Reflective Narrative chapter, written six years ago and extends it to include my personal and professional learning since, as influenced by the societal challenges outlined above. It seeks to trace a journey fraught with tensions from internationalisation of the self (Sanderson, 2004) towards decolonisation of the self (Fakunle, Kalinga and Lewis, 2019) in the light of the challenges outlined above. The aim is to start a conversation among network 22 about how as HE professionals, we learn and unlearn to embrace the challenges we face on what may be an uncomfortable journey to create a curriculum which tackles existing inequalities enables equality of outcomes.

The freedom of learning and the possibility for students to access a much wider educational offer are key elements for reshaping the European higher education landscape. Students are more mobile than ever, and new formats for teaching and learning readdress the need to rethink how academic curriculum is designed and developed. New tendencies and innovative approaches to education, such as micro-credentials, embedded mobility, digital credentialing, and flexible learning pathways open the way for true ‘universities without walls’ (EUA, 2021) across Europe. The global academic community is constantly changing; cooperation among universities grew in the past 20 years, facing a significant increase in student mobility, in Europe mainly due to Erasmus+ funding and mobility schemes and other Bologna Process tools (de Wit & Hunter, 2015, p. 1). Moreover, European universities intensified cooperation not only with partners from other European countries, but at an international level also, with partner from other continents (Claeys-Kulik, 2020, p. 10).

In such a global educational context, universities and policy makers can ask whether the increase in mobility can represent a tool for designing new curricular models, creating new educational programmes in which mobility and cultural exchanges become functional components and in which all graduates become international students. Such an approach could be done through academic degrees and programmes where mobility is embedded in the curriculum, in the shape of small mobility windows (up to one semester), taking advantage of new mobility schemes such as the Blended Intensive Programmes (European Commission, 2022, p. 49) or modular approaches, such as the ones proposed by some European Universities Alliances (Iucu et al., 2022, p. 26), based on a `micro-credentials philosophy`.

While setting up such a process can require significant changes in legislation, funding, pedagogical design, and administrative practices, the real impact of these changes need to be addressed to the potential beneficiaries, the students. In fact, the importance and relevance of physical mobility has been several times mentioned by students, stating the “physical mobility should be accessible to all students, and should not exclude certain groups” (ESU, 2020, p. 2), emphasising that reaching the 50% mobile students need to remain a constant desiderate of higher education policies across Europe.

In this regard, our research aims at understanding what is the students’ perception on embedded mobility in higher education programmes. The research proposes an exploratory analysis on how students view mobility as part of their educational pathway and possible downsides of transforming mobility as an opportunity to mobility as a necessary experience. Motivations for studying abroad by European exchange students have been addressed in a range of studies (Bryntesson et al., 2018; European Commission, 2017; Hovdhaugen & Wiers-Jenssen, 2021; Krzaklewska, 2008; Lesjak et al., 2015; Maiworm & Teichler, 2002; Murphy-Lejeune, 2002), the present research aiming to see, on top of motivational aspects, if differences appear when changing the scope of mobility and its relation with the degree. Different types of students will be included in the research, both junior students prior any mobility experience during their academic studies, as well as students who already participated in different mobility opportunities during their studies. Also, the research will focus on understanding what students value most in a mobility experience, to understand what aspects need to be intensified further in developing new mobility models and opportunities for higher education students.

International student mobility has increased worldwide in the past ten years. Among OECD countries, Germany is the non-English speaking country with the highest number of incoming international students. In 2021/22, eleven percent of all students studying at German universities were international students (DZHW & DAAD, 2022). Due to refugee flows the numbers will further increase and underline the need to explore the success of international students in non-English speaking countries in Europe.

International students tend to rely on university rankings when choosing a course of study (Koenings, Di Meo, & Uebelmesser, 2020). Individual satisfaction with different study aspects is often the basis of universities’ reputations or rankings in Germany (e.g., CHE-Ranking). Moreover, satisfaction with studies is an important indicator of study success from an individual and institutional point of view. For international students in Germany, results show that a higher satisfaction with studies or the content of studies relates to a higher socio-cultural adaptation and a lower dropout intention (Zimmermann et al., 2021) and better study grades and faster study progress (Thies, 2022). The estimated dropout rates among international bachelor’s and master’s students are substantially higher than among German students (DZHW & DAAD, 2022). Consequently, the question arises about the factors influencing international students’ satisfaction with their studies.

Many theoretical student success models have seen the course characteristics, academic performance, social integration and environmental conditions as important predictors of satisfaction (e.g., Astin, 1999; Bean & Metzner, 1985). Astin (1999) asks how policies and programs (e.g., class attendance) and non-academic issues (e.g., financial situations) relate to student success. He sees student involvement (e.g., academic study, interaction with faculty) as a mechanism leading to satisfaction, achievement, and development. Bean and Metzner (1985) see background characteristics (e.g., ethnicity) and academic and environmental variables (e.g., course availability, finances) as predictors of psychological outcomes, such as satisfaction. The psychological outcomes subsequently affect academic outcomes, such as the grade point average or student dropout.

Previous studies have explored the determinants of study satisfaction for international students. In the international context, the results show that learning experience (e.g., quality of lectures, lectures expertise) affects overall satisfaction (Alemu & Cordier, 2017). Other predictors for satisfaction are cultural distance, language skills, the universities’ communication before arrival, living arrangement and the financial situation (Alemu & Cordier, 2017). Moreover, studies highlight that academic and social integration affect study satisfaction (Merola, Coelen, & Hofman, 2019). In the German context, studies showed that feeling a sense of belonging (Yildirim, Zimmermann, & Jonkmann, 2021), specific learning strategies (Yildirim, Zimmermann, & Jonkmann, 2020) and better language skills (Yildirim et al., 2020) relate to higher levels of student satisfaction.

We build on previous research and ask how and whether perceived characteristics of the study program (e.g., the internationality of the student body, overcrowded courses, frequency of exams, performance standards, teaching quality) affect the study satisfaction of international bachelor’s and master’s students in Germany.

In doing so, our study differs from previous studies as follows: We can look at the influence of course characteristics for international students over two years using panel regression analyses. We analyse both bachelor’s and master’s students. Moreover, we are the first to investigate how the perceived internationality of the student body in the chosen study program affects student satisfaction. Consequently, implications for the design of study programs can be derived from our research findings.

The traditional system of elite education in France, which could be considered as a “French exception” (Lazuech 1999), is challenged by processes of internationalisation and globalisation of the field of higher education. The grandes écoles – the French elite colleges – with their two-year preparatory classes (classes préparatoires) at some prestigious lycées can be considered as unique in the severity of the selection processes (the concours), on which is grounded the great symbolic weight of these institutions of elite education, even more than the universities in France.

The ongoing reorganisation of the French field of higher education, which Musselin (2017: 226) designates “fusion mania”, has led to the formation of greater research units such as the “Communautés d’universités et d’établissements” (COMUES) [Engl. Communities of universities and institutions]. These have recently been transformed into "universities”, which are new higher education formations that include the former universities, but also the grandes écoles and other research institutions.

Against the backdrop of these transformations of the former power relations in the academic field in France, our paper focuses on the processes of reconfiguration of the traditional identities of the very nationally anchored institutions in elite education: the grandes écoles. Our research question is how discourses of self-construction and -positioning of the grandes écoles – in our study the Écoles normales supérieures – as well as their social constructions of an ideal student have evolved in the context of the reconfiguration of the higher education field in France. These constructions and positionings are understood as constituting elements of institutional habitus (Schippling 2018), a concept that develops the fruitful potential of the Bourdieusian theory of habitus for an organisational sociological perspective.

From the theoretical perspective, our paper is situated within critical research on the education of elites (e.g., Bourdieu 1989; Hartmann 2002; Maxwell et al. 2018) and can be understood as a contribution to continuing research on the field of French elite education in line with the work of Pierre Bourdieu and his colleagues on La noblesse d’État (Bourdieu 1989). Our work refers mainly to the triad of the concepts, ‘habitus’, ‘field’ and ‘capital’. These concepts function as heuristic elements which are developed and, if necessary, modified within the research process.

Our study includes two Écoles normales supérieures: the ENS de la rue d’Ulm and the ENS de Cachan (since 2016 École normale supérieure Paris-Saclay): two prestigious grandes écoles in France, which regard themselves as institutions forming the future research elite (ENS / PSL 2023). Bourdieu (1988: 19) designates these colleges “the apex of the whole academic hierarchy” in France. Our aim is to ascertain how these traditionally small and internationally less visible institutions, strongly founded in a national culture, react to the transformation of the field of French higher education in the construction of their institutional habitus.

On the whole, our focus is on contributing to an update of the theory of social reproduction of the field of power – in this case the academic power field – which was developed in La noblesse d’État, taking into account processes of internationalisation and globalisation in the field of the grandes écoles: this perspective was not considered in Bourdieu’s work. In parallel, we open up comparative perspectives with other international contexts of elite education in the higher education system that are also affected by global transformations, but react in different ways (e.g., Verhoeven et al. 2022).

Despite its multilingual society and four national languages, Switzerland has for the longest time offered tertiary education in French and German only. Historically, universities have existed in the German-speaking part since the 15^thcentury and in the French-speaking part since the 16^th century. Ticino, the only officially monolingual Italian-speaking canton, founded the Università della Svizzera Italiana (USI) in 1995. To this day, the USI only offers six study programs. This implies that Italian-speaking students are forced to choose among not to study at all, choose a study program out of the limited offer, move to Italy or to a different linguistic region in Switzerland to study in either French or German.

The university attracting most Italian-speaking students is the French- and German-bilingual University of Fribourg (UNIFR). According to UNIFR (UNIFR, 2022a), approximately 10% of its students are Italian-speaking, either from the canton of Ticino, the Italian-speaking part of Grisons, or Italy. Although Italian is the L1 of the third largest language group of speakers after French (39%) and German (36%) and is a national language, there are no official language policies or offers to support Italian at university. The university language policy explicitly states that

1. French and German are the languages used in teaching and administration.
2. The faculties may permit other languages of instruction.
3. The University favors and promotes understanding between persons from different linguistic and cultural areas; in particular, it encourages bilingual studies in French and German. (University law, Art. 6)

Rather, the strict emphasis on the two official languages can be seen to reinforce ideological language choices and create exclusion not only for Italian-speaking but also for any international students who do not speak French or German.

The present study investigates the lived experiences of language and the resulting challenges of Italian-speaking and international students at UNIFR by asking:

1. What are students’ language practices and perspectives on the university’s language policies?
2. What challenges do they face when starting university in a different linguistic region and/or national context?
3. To what extent does English contribute to or impede language and identity development?

The study aims at raising awareness of hegemonic practices through linguistic homogenization and monolingual language policies when multilingual diversity is the social and university’s reality. A special focus is put on the global phenomenon of ‘Englishization' in the context of higher education describing the spread and common use of English as a medium of instruction without any official status as a national language in the local linguascape (Lanvers, 2018), which has been attested to be the case also in Switzerland (Studer & Siddiqa, 2021). In fact, in their study on English in Swiss higher education, Studer and Siddiqa (2021) conclude that

"the Swiss pragmatic way lack[s] a comprehensive and overarching commitment to national languages and national multilingualism as an expression of the nation’s culture and identity. English…is not only used as a welcome and efficient tool for communication but may, locally, be elevated to rank side-by-side with national languages." (p. 137)

Education agents are organisations and/or individuals who provide a range of services in exchange for a fee from their service users, including overseas higher education institutions and/or students who will study or are studying abroad (Nikula & Kivistö, 2018; Krasocki, 2002). In the marketized international higher education sector, education agents appear to play an increasingly important role in the fierce international student recruitment campaign (BUILA, 2021). Accordingly, there are an increasing number of studies on education agents such as the role of education agents in international students’ decision-making (Feng & Horta, 2021; Robinson-Pant & Magyar, 2018; Hagedorn & Zhang, 2011) and the relationship between agents and overseas universities (Nikula, 2022; Huang et al., 2020). However, there remains a significant gap in our knowledge of the underlying meaning of the wide use of education agents to international students, universities, policymakers, and other stakeholders. Therefore, this article aims to understand the meaning of using education agents widely by exploring the collective beliefs and practices of prospective Chinese international students who used an education agent (Chinese agent-user applicants) over the course of their application for UK postgraduate taught (PGT) programmes. This article draws on longitudinal semi-structured interviews with 10 Chinese agent-user applicants from November 2020 to June 2021 and uses Bourdieu’s concept of doxa to analyse the data. Doxa refers to the collective beliefs, opinions, assumptions, and norms about the appropriate practices that everyone in the field is conscious of yet does not question (Bourdieu, 1977). In Bourdieu’s terms, doxa is a form of recognition of legitimacy through the ‘misrecognition of arbitrariness’ (1977, p. 168). That is, part of the rules that do not serve to usefully function within the field, are misrecognised as common sense of the field (Williams & Choudry, 2016). In this study, my initial analysis suggests that the practice of using an education agent becomes many Chinese agent-user applicants’ ‘pre-reflexive intuitive knowledge’ ​​(Deer, 2008, p.120), When forming their intention to study abroad, many Chinese students tend to glean related information through different channels including education agents, recommendations from families and alumni, social media, university websites, online forum/academic community, specific mobile applications, and online search engines. These channels all routed them towards using an education agent (Yang, 2021). Their routine practices thus led me to employ Bourdieu’s concept of doxa to explore what Chinese agent-user applicants learned and did in the application process.

For over 35 years, many thousands of young people have experienced outward mobility as part of their UK university undergraduate degree programmes. Since 1987, UK-based students have had the opportunity to take part in an educational mobility initiative known as the Erasmus programme. The UK was involved in this programme from its inception, along with 10 other countries; it has subsequently enabled students’ short term international educational mobility, providing students with a grant and waiving tuition fees for study in another member country. In addition, the UK has accepted thousands of students to study, annually, as part of the exchange agreements built into this programme. Erasmus+ has become a central feature of UK universities’ increasingly popular ‘study abroad’ initiatives.

From 2022, however, UK students are no longer to participate in this scheme, just as students in other European countries are unable to attend UK universities under Erasmus+. Replacing this programme, as part of the development of what the government has called ‘Global Britain’, is the Turing Scheme. To date, there has been virtually no academic analysis of the implications of this change. This paper constitutes an early examination of these implications by focussing on the messages conveyed about the scheme – to current and prospective students – by higher education institutions.

The Turing Scheme clearly sits within a broader landscape of short-term international mobility. Moving abroad to undertake so-called ‘credit mobility’ has become increasingly popular, and encouraged by HEIs, governments and even, in the case of Europe, by regional bodies. Although such mobility has typically been arranged through study exchanges, where students move to another country for an entire semester or year and follow degree-level courses in the host institution, over the past decade it has broadened to include international work placements (Cranston et al., 2020); faculty-led programmes (Tran et al., 2021); and the emergence of ‘gap year’-like programmes, where there is little attempt to ‘match’ academic content of courses between institutions (Courtois, 2018). As a consequence of this diversification of opportunities, the time spent abroad has also, often, been reduced.

Analyses of the purposes and impact of short-term student mobility have focussed heavily on employment and perceived employability, potentially appealing to less privileged students (Deakin, 2014). Indeed, in their study of international work placements offered to students in UK higher education, Cranston et al. (2020) show how, despite an emphasis on fun and personal development, their participants understood their experience primarily in terms of securing an experience that would allow them to ‘stand out’ from others within a congested graduate labour market. Such placements were seen as an effective means of demonstrating ‘an individual’s employability, but also their “global mindset” and ability to work in different national contexts’ (p.141). Research on the perspectives of universities has also, in some cases, evidenced a strong focus on employability (Tran et al., 2021), sometimes to the near exclusion of academic learning (Sidhu and Dell’Alba, 2017). However, Miller-Idriss and colleagues (2019) demonstrate how, in the US at least, messages about the purpose of study abroad propagated by HEIs tend to focus not on employability, but on having fun, maturing, and developing and transforming personally. In this way, they contend, these messages closely align with expectations of elite US higher education more generally – and may serve to exclude historically marginalised students who often view higher education in more instrumental terms. Such messages also tend to also position host countries in very limited ways – and primarily as places for US students’ ‘consumption, entertainment, and personal edification’ (p.1104). These images may serve to discourage less privileged students from considering short term study abroad opportunities.

Metaphors figuratively pair ordinarily separate concepts in a way that is intended to be illustrative (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Their use in relation to universities is not new – such as in case of the ivory tower (see Shapin 2012) – but it seems that while the juxtaposition can help us to think about phenomena in different ways, there is also a danger of them blurring our understanding (Lumby and Foskett 2011). As Tight (2013) mentions, sometimes the metaphor simply doesn’t fit because it obfuscates core characteristics, such as in framing students as consumers, apprentices, or something other than students. Metaphors have, though, been applied fruitfully, such as to consider tensions between different purposes for higher education such as knowledge republic or free market actor (Olsen 2007), and they are a common feature of debate and ‘battle’ over The University’s ‘soul’ (Deering and Sá 2018).

One common metaphor around universities is that of the landscape, and its prevalence across educational scholarship more broadly has led to it being identified as something of a buzzword (Terepyshchyi 2017). Its use in higher education in particular has been associated with a somewhat geographical turn in our language, such as shifting tectonic plates around universities (Caruana 2016), the climates of campus cultures (Sundaram and Jackson 2018), or disciplinary spaces, terrains, domains, or kingdoms (Chen and Hu 2012). Landscapes appear to be somewhat ubiquitous in higher education scholarship and wider writing, appearing in outlets ranging between official USAID reports (Lebrón et al. 2018) to mainstream media such as The Atlantic (Fallows and Ganeshanthan 2004). Google Scholar searches return 37,000 results on the term “research landscape”, and 13,000 on “academic landscape”, and there are other formulations. While it is important to draw a distinction between literal and theoretical uses of the term such as landscape planning or landscapes of practice, landscapes are clearly doing a lot of ‘work’ in and around higher education. What work that is, though, remains to be seen.

The focus of this paper is therefore on the use of the term landscape in higher education research and within that, “higher education landscape”, which returns over 30,000 results on Google Scholar. If, as the literature suggests, metaphors serve a function, what function – or functions – does this one serve for higher education? To be clear, the research question here is ‘how are landscapes as metaphors, and within that, higher education landscapes, used in higher education scholarship?’ Through a systematic review of the literature, this paper ‘maps’ the higher education landscape of higher education landscapes. It is hoped that exploring the application of this metaphor – and whether the juxtaposition illustrates or obfuscates – can provide useful insights into how higher education is conceptualised.

In recent years, the role of the state in internationalisation in higher education (HE) has been the subject of increasing research (Veerasamy and Durst 2021). Yet, only about 10% of countries around the world have a formal national internationalisation strategy, mostly concentrated in affluent democracies, and of those, over 80% of them are OECD members (Crăciun 2018). Thus, national internationalisation policies have primarily emerged in developed (democratic) economies, and amongst nations within the OECD, an organisation which, in the field of education, exerts its influence on national policy debates by governing through ‘numbers’ (e.g. Education at a Glance, PISA) and projecting global policies and norms, both directly and indirectly promoting the practice of policy mimicry and isomorphism.

Comparative studies on national internationalisation policies, on the other hand, would argue (at times implicitly) that, while such policies originate as a response to demands for ‘globalisation’, countries tend to be selective in deciding which metrics, policy instruments, or specific policy rationales to employ, often on the basis of their current needs (Sanders 2019). In striving to compete, nations may embark on a process of horizon scanning, to identify ‘what works’ and best practices elsewhere, facilitating forms of policy borrowing from high performers (Forestier et al. 2016). While scholars of isomorphism often argue that national systems are converging around a ‘single’ global model, dismissing any local or national variations as mere ‘diversity facades’ (Zapp, Marques, and Powell 2021), it should also be noted that policy borrowing is often subject to a process of translation and transformation (Cowen 2009), and that policies can be transplanted with little adaptation. Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock (2017), for example, argue that developing countries often adopt policies, programmes and institutional structures from developed countries, which helps improve their image and legitimacy; however, these solutions are often not fit for the local context and they are often required to borrow policies by their funders. The result is the transfer of ‘prefabricated’ solutions which ensures ‘successful failure’ as external best practices are adopted as policies, but fall short of their purposes, and do not promote innovation, experimentation or localised solutions.

This paper focuses on the role of the OECD in shaping internationalisation of HE policies in Israel and South Korea, two nations which are members of the OECD but on the ‘periphery’ in terms of those which have driven globalisation. We believe that this paper will provide a companion to the existing corpus of works on the internationalisation of HE in Europe.

This paper presents a historical analysis of the role of the Organisation for Co-operation and Development in Europe (OECD), in shaping the transformation of the higher education system, policies and institutions in Ireland in the early 2000s. As Vaira notes, powerful supranational agencies such as the OECD may serve as ‘institutional carriers’ which promote and disseminate ‘the wider rationalised myths’ of globalisation and define the context in which higher education institutions operate (Vaira, 2004, Walsh, 2018).

The historical study is framed by an analysis of two seminal reports, the review of higher education in Ireland by the OECD (2004) and the national strategy for higher education to 2030 (2011), widely known as the 'Hunt Report'. Both reports are underpinned by a similar ideological vision informed by theories of human capital formation and a shared conviction that higher education should be reformed to contribute effectively to a knowledge based economy. Higher education was positioned as a key determinant of national economic salvation in the Hunt report, which adopted a narrow conceptualisation of human capital theory broadly shared by the OECD.

The study explores the extent to which the national strategy adopted in 2011 constituted an example of 'policy borrowing' (Vaira, 2004) by national political and administrative elites from a dominant international discourse disseminated by the OECD, featuring structural rationalisation at system level, institutional reform to curb the autonomy of universities and more intensive regulation of higher education by state agencies. The process of policy formation by the two expert groups is considered to explore the ideological frameworks which they adopted and the extent to which the reports subscribed to a common reform agenda.

A key question for this paper is the extent to which both the OECD and the national strategy were influenced by neo liberalism and its associated organisational discourse of new public management (NPM). Neo-liberalism, described by Vaira as ‘not only a political rhetoric, or ideology, but a wide project to change the institutional structure of societies at a global level’, was never embraced uncritically by Irish policymakers in the late twentieth century. Both the OECD and the Hunt report in the early 2000s adopted much of the rhetoric of NPM, advocating a more hierarchical, empowered management within higher education institutions; increased accountability mechanisms for academic staff and more intrusive regulation by state agencies. Yet this apparent adoption of NPM within the Hunt report remained partial, coexisting uneasily with explicit support for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, albeit within a restructured higher education sector characterised by ‘directed diversity’.

The paper also gives weight to the differing economic and societal contexts for the two reports: the OECD review was undertaken at a time of relative economic affluence internationally and for the Irish economy, while the Hunt report was completed at the height of the economic crash which ultimately triggered a European-IMF bailout for the Irish state. There were significant limitations to the influence of supranational agencies, not least due to political, regional and fiscal constraints which impinged on national policymakers in an era of crisis.

The differences between the OECD review and the Hunt report largely reflected pragmatic political decisions on how best to implement shared objectives and values in a distinctive domestic context in which consensual decision-making on a partnership model was the norm and regional and local interests traditionally enjoyed significant influence. This paper will interrogate the shared ideological discourse and policy agenda expressed by both the OECD review and the Hunt report, while also exploring genuine differences in terms of the process of policy formation and implementation.

There is a tendency to conceptualize Internationalization in Higher Education (IHE) as a matter of student mobility. However, research in and out of the academy forms a wide space of international collaboration. Research collaboration between academics as a growing phenomenon has attracted the attention of higher education researchers and policymakers around the world (Ponds, 2009; Menash & Enu-Kwesi, 2018). The literature documents various rationales for International Research Collaboration (IRC) that are operating at the micro (individual researchers), meso (institutional/university), and macro (country/national) levels. From a micro perspective, international collaboration in research is inevitable for academics because of various reasons such as accomplishing a wider impact on their research output, improving the quality of research outputs, widening the scope of their research, soliciting funds for research, benefiting from wider research infrastructures, and joining research networks (Finkelstein, Walker, and Chen (2013; Hoekman et al., 2010; Kyvik and Larsen 1994; Ponds, 2009; Shehatta & Mahmood, 2016). From the meso (institutional/university) perspective international collaboration in research has become a strategic orientation for prominent universities around the world (Hovart, Weber & Wicki, 2000). Universities build a reputation and make themselves more visible on the international scene with the help of IRC. Finally, from the macro level (country/national) perspective non-science policy objectives such as improving national competitiveness, supporting less developed countries, tackling global challenges, and serving public diplomacy can also be aimed by IRC (Technolopolis Group, 2009). Kwiek (2018) stated that international collaboration in research is accepted as an indicator of a competitive economy. For many countries, IRC forms a critical input to building a knowledge-based economy (Horvath et al., 2000) as well as transforming higher education systems and national research policies (Calikoglu, Kondakci, & Seggie, 2023).

Although IRC has strong rationales at different levels, academics face several different challenges and barriers in their IRC. These challenges and barriers are more evident in peripheral countries, resulting in lower IRC levels in these countries. The question of why IRC is not realized at a desired level, and more importantly why peripheral countries realized it at even lower levels is an important concern. Kwiek (2018) distinguished IRC from international research orientation. International research orientation is an attitude and it is a precursor of IRC, while the IRC refers to the actual behavior of performing research collaboration (Kwiek, 2018). Evidently, the international nature of higher education and even the presence of orientation for international research does not guarantee IRC. Understanding economic, political, social, cultural, and academic barriers operating differently at micro, meso, and macro levels is important in developing policies for realizing IRC. In addition, comparative studies help to capture practices and perspectives in different country contexts. As a result, insights from policies, practices, and perspectives in a peripheral context may potentially inform policy and practices to widen IRC. Research outputs around the globe are skewed toward Western countries (Jung & Horta, 2013; Tight, 2012). Therefore, the current study aims to reveal the (1) factors leading to IRC, (2) barriers to IRC, and (3) solutions for more effective IRC at the individual, institutional and national levels.

Higher Education in Iran and Turkey
Two countries' higher education system are based on the bureaucratic system and centralization (Ghoraishi Khorasgani & Nazarzadeh Zare, 2021; Kondakci & Şenay, 2022). Both higher education systems have been under the influence of globalization and internationalization trends. As a result, academics in the two countries faced the repercussions of internationalization in their teaching and research (Hayati & Didegah, 2010; Calikoglu, Kondakci, & Seggie, 2023). Thus, the two countries form a good case of comparison to identify the facilitators and barriers and develop recommendations for effective ITC policies.

The international education (IE) market has 5.3 million students studying outside their home country (OECD 2019). The US, UK, Canada and Australia are top destination choices, contributing to student diversity. International students (IS) have benefitted provider country’s economically, socially and politically and through soft power (Byrne and Hall 2013). IE as Australia’s largest services export created 250,000 jobs for Australians in services (tourism, accommodation, transport, hospitality, entertainment and retail). Australian universities have become financially dependent on IS to fund research and domestic student expansion (30.7% of students are international and one third from China) (Marshman & Larkins 2020, Aust Gov 2020) and therefore impacted by border closures (Ziguras and Tran 2020).

Student mobility has increasingly become subject to turbulence in politics, culture, economics, natural disasters, and public health (Tran 2020, Sharma and Leung 2017). Australian universities vulnerability resulted from convergence of Covid travel restrictions, regional and global shifts in international relations, and increasing inward-looking nationalism (Blackmore 2020, Tran 2020b). IS mobility depends on multiple intersecting and unexpected factors:- rapid changes geopolitically (eg. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine), China’s increased aggression in Indo-Pacific and exertion of soft power internationally (Ren 2020, He 2019) and significant global and regional reconfigurations of political alliances (e.g AUKUS) (He 2020), and post Covid recovery of nation states (Ross 2020, Mittelmeyer 2020).

The overarching three-year Australian Research Council project from which this paper is drawn investigates both inward and outward flows of IS within this complex geopolitical context (Marginson et al. 2010, Potts 2015; Tran 2020). It considers the geopolitics and perceptions of risk (political, economic and health security) of the various stakeholders (students, universities, governments). The project examines (i) Australian and foreign universities’ policy responses related to transnational student mobilities, international partnerships and global engagement, and (ii) how student perceptions of risk (health security, safety of host and home countries and geopolitical context) will inform study destination choices in the future.

This paper focuses on (i). It charts the wider geopolitical contexts over time which have shaped transnational education and focuses on current trends in student mobility with a particular focus on China, India and Vietnam as key providers of students to Australia. It considers how each of these countries have viewed internationalisation of education (He and Wilkins 2018), how international education has been weaponised and how policy responses to rising security concerns impact on universities and academic collaboration (Li 2009, Hunter 2019, Luqui and McCarthy 2019, Osborne and Gredley 2020, Bagshaw 2020).

The paper is framed by Beck’s conceptualisation of a ‘world risk society’. This allows us to examine the different scales of geo-politics of IS and the multilayered personal, familial, institutional, national and international perspectives that inform IE choices. Beck’s frame enables a nuanced understanding across all these scales from the individual risk to a particular student to the national risks of geopolitics and to institutional risk. The choice for individual students, universities and governments is between different risky alternatives (Beck 2013:7). Contrary to the technical science of risk (‘statistical mathematical identification, causal hypothesis, prognostic models, group variations in perception) which assumes an expert/ lay separation, Beck’s frame comprises ‘subjective risk’ (individual reaction, response or judgement where prejudices and fears intervene) and ‘cultural perception of risk’ informed by national politics and contexts (Beck 2013:10). The lay/expert separation is disintegrating because the less calculable the risk is, the more subjective/cultural perceptions dominate, albeit with national differences. Cultural perceptions of risk clash with technical risk in social media, although ‘cultures’ are forcibly united into shared risk (eg public health) with social media and science making the perception of risk more acute and ‘collectively visible’ (Beck, 2013:8).

Student mobility has become a salient trend in higher education (HE) worldwide. Not only is the overall rate of international enrollment unprecedented, but notable is the growing complexities in the patterns of such mobility, as manifested by the increasingly diverse choices of study-abroad destinations and heterogeneous student body (including their differing dispositions, abilities, etc.). The ever-complex intercultural encounters in differing host contexts constantly call for up-to-date understandings of the intricate processes and outcomes of intercultural experiences.

However, there is limited systematic understanding on international student experiences in ‘unorthodox’ destinations such as China. This dearth of review contrasts with China’s rise to the top destination in Asia and the third in the world (following the US and UK), hosting 492,185 foreign students according to the latest statistic in 2018. Importantly, the distinctive Chinese context might lead to different patterns in cross-cultural experiences, making it an indispensable block within the global student mobility jigsaw puzzle. Specifically, compared to the neoliberal policies in countries such as UK and US, internationalization of HE in China is highly government-driven and outward-oriented with multi-faceted rationales such as enhancing cultural diplomacy, economic reciprocity especially towards neighboring and/or peripheral countries, as well as building world-class universities. These are likely to shape incoming students’ distinctive aspirations and cross-cultural experiences. As Dervin et al. (2018) warn, we need to unlearn prescribed imaginaries and representations about study-aboard when researching cross-cultural experiences in China.

Furthermore, a review of existent literature on student mobility worldwide reveals a long-lasting yet still highly relevant debate between structure and agency. On the one hand, there is a dominant stress on the tensions between individuals’ incompetence and host context’s expectations. Though recognizing the difficulties international students face, this stream of research risks assuming cross-cultural adaptation as inherently problematic and uni-directional, accentuating individual deficits. This assumption is especially evident in some South-North mobility studies where initially ‘unskilled’ students from ‘the rest of the world’ are assumed to be passively adjusted by the academic and social norms established in the North. Devoid of agency, individual students (or individual teachers) are further held accountable for intercultural outcomes, leaving the vexed individual-environment relationship unexamined. On the other hand, scholars such as Matsunaga et al. (2021) call for a shift to a students’ agency-oriented approach, arguing international students are not passive reproducers of institutional practices, but active negotiators of the incongruence between the host environments and their previous habitus. Relatedly, there have been emerging research problematizing the simplistic and passive intercultural outcome of mere fitting-in. Gill (2007) examines how Chinese international students in the UK negotiate their intercultural experience, build a ‘third space’ (Bhabha, 1994) to accommodate different views and eventually achieve distinctiveness and transformation beyond adaptation. This agency-structure debate in the wider global context informs the focuses of our review on the interactions between environmental and individual factors and their co-production of diverse cross-cultural outcomes.

Therefore, this review aims to synthesize empirical evidence on how environmental and individual factors interact and co-produce cross-cultural outcomes of international students in China, from an ecological and person-in-context perspective. While Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological model deconstructs different layers of the environmental factors, Volet's (2001) person-in-context perspective enables us to address the ‘experiential interface’ connecting environment-level affordances/constraints and individual-level enablers/blockers. Though focusing on the Chinese context, this review contributes to the wider debates on student mobility globally and a deeper understanding of the complexities of such mobility.

COVID-19 pandemic had a major adverse impact on the lives of people and societies over the past two years, particularly in the educational sector. Public health measures to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted education in over 150 countries and affected 1.6 billion students [1]. The lockdowns imposed on several countries forced many children and young people to migrate from face-to-face education to distance learning. Strictly speaking, this was not distance learning, i.e., “well-planned online learning experience”, but rather emergency remote learning, “courses offered online in response to a crisis” [2].

The pandemic situation inspired many studies and reports on education in times of lockdown. Much literature focused policy responses devised in this period [3, 4], highlighting the idea that educational inequalities have increased considerably with the disruption caused by the various lockdowns [5, 6]. Some authors have looked at pedagogical issues and teaching practices associated with distance learning [3], focusing on teachers’ perspectives [8], mainly at the school level.

Comparatively fewer studies have looked at the perspective of young students and analysed how they have adapted to distance learning. The reason for this gap may be the assumption that young people would not have difficulties migrating to this type of education because they are considered “digital natives” [9].

In fact, the literature indicates that young people are intensive users of digital technologies [10], and digital practices underpin the intense mediated experience prevalent in the everyday lives of these so-called “digital natives”. Navigating in this ubiquitous environment changes the way students think and process information [9].

In contrast, conventional face-to-face teaching in secondary and tertiary education is largely structured in sequential times and contents, delivered step-by-step, and undertaken in rigid spaces.

The shift to online learning imposed by the lockdowns represented an opportunity to change this paradigm, bringing teaching closer to the online environment familiar to young people. One might expect students to prefer this move to online learning. However, research conducted these past two years on online learning during lockdown converges on a common trait: students generally do not like the virtual learning experience they have been forced to enter [3, 11, 12]. There seems to be a paradox here: young digital natives, avid users of technology (although mostly for leisure purposes) claim to prefer face-to-face teaching to distance learning. It matters then to examine the reasons behind this preference, beyond the issues of emergency limitations to teaching in disaster contexts

Based on the results of one online survey applied in the second lockdown period in Portugal (February 2021), this contribution seeks to determine what young respondents (16–24 years old) think about their experiences of attending classes from home. More specifically, the proposal aims to delve into young students’ perceptions and experience with remote education; and to investigate expectations of academic life postponed or frustrated during this period.

Virtual collaboration is becoming increasingly more common in work life and education, a development that has been accentuated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Working together via online platforms enables collaboration across the globe, which is considered key for realizing the UN’s sustainable development goals, as people from all over the world and from different professions and disciplines can be brought together to solve global problems. The same holds true for education, where online platforms allow student collaboration across institutions and geographical borders and thus for exposing students to viewpoints and the diversity of people from different places (Usher & Barak, 2020). It is thus imperative that students learn to work in and as teams in online settings. One pedagogy to facilitate such learning is project-based learning, a form of student-centric, collaborative learning whereby students work on projects with real-world problems (Guo et al., 2020; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006).

However, virtual collaboration brings challenges, particularly those related to the social dimensions of teamwork. Social interaction is more difficult when communication happens digitally (Janssen & Kirschner, 2020). Without the non-verbal communication that occur in face-to-face interactions, digital interactions are often more formal (Pérez-Mateo & Guitert, 2012). A team is inherently a social entity and the interaction between team members is critical to develop and sustain beneficial team emergent states (Akan et al., 2020). Social interaction in a team is furthermore essential for learning and general wellbeing (Sjølie et al., 2022). Scholars in education have therefore focused on how social interaction can be enabled and stimulated in online environments.

Despite abundant research on online student collaboration, researchers have only to a limited extent explored learning settings where student teams self-organize their collaboration (Sjølie et al., 2022). Research has primarily focused on how online learning environments can be designed to improve learning or on how teachers and technology can facilitate social interaction. What has been missing is a focus on students as agents rather than passive learners who are molded by teachers or technology. To understand how student teamwork and learning are enabled and constrained within virtual environments we need to explore how student collaboration play out in online settings when students (primarily) organize and lead themselves, in interaction with a variety of online platforms and tools.

This paper provides insight into the social aspects of student teamwork in a digital or hybrid environment. With a qualitative design, the study explores how students experienced the social climate in their virtual and hybrid teams in an interdisciplinary project-based course during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether and how they took actively part in creating and sustaining the social climate in their teams.

We use the term social climate for the key characteristics of the socio-emotional dimension of interaction within a team. The socio-emotional dimension is typically fostered in non-task contexts and is characterized as more casual than task-related interaction (Kreijns et al., 2013). Some researchers understand the socio-emotional dimension as the interaction that is perceived to go beyond what is strictly necessary to achieve an academic goal (Pérez-Mateo & Guitert, 2012). Using these existing accounts from the literature, the social climate is fostered both in task and non-task contexts, and it describes the students’ perceptions of being part of a team. We will also draw on Sias’ (2009) three types of peer relationships – information peer relationships, collegial peer relationships and special peer relationships. Sias argues that the quality of peer relationships affects satisfaction, commitment, and stress on the individual level. While Sias (2009) is concerned with peer relationships within an organization, it is reasonable to assume that there are similarities between peer relationships and team member relationships.

A recurrent theme in research on learning in higher education revolves around the role of learning strategies in studying, adapting to new challenges and continuing to learn (Biwer et al., 2020; Huet et al., 2008). Within this framework, there is a certain consensus that university students need to develop: i) the ability to gather and interpret relevant data (usually within their field of study) to inform judgments that include reflection on relevant social, scientific or ethical issues; ii) communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences (postgraduate level) and communicate their conclusions, the knowledge and rationale, to specialist and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously (postgraduate level); and iii) have developed those learning skills that are necessary for them to continue to undertake further study with a higher degree of autonomy (Huet et al., 2008, p. 158)

A review of the research literature on learning strategies at the University shows that the predominant foci are on (a) the relationship between the strategies adopted by pupils in secondary education and their adequacy (or not) to the needs of higher education (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013 ), (b) the strategies that students need to learn and use to succeed in higher education, (c) the strategies that either universities or teachers promote in their classes; and (d) on methods to improve metacognitive knowledge and to encourage effective learning strategies in higher education (Tullis, Finley, & Benjamin, 2013; Yan, Bjork,& Bjork, 2016). The characteristic feature of these approaches is that they aim to, after defining the authors' conceptualisation of what learning strategies are and should do, 'measure' effectiveness, usually by linking it to student performance. This approach's characteristic is that it seems to view students as an 'empty box' who, in their years of schooling and social and cultural life, have not learned and integrated learning strategies that they can transfer and use at the University.

[Anonymised] research project, instead of considering students as 'lacking', sees them as epistemic selves, prepared for rational knowledge (Charlot, 2001), as 'carriers' of knowledge and learning strategies that have been incorporated into their conceptual and practical baggage, not only in schooling experiences but also in everyday life situations and contexts (sports, socialisation, family,...). This paper focuses on making a 'reading' of what the [anonymised] conversations with the students provide. It allows us to think about the learning strategies that young people share with us and how they relate to those 'demanded by the university'. We aim to generate ways of understanding the following questions: What strategies do students use to learn? What do these strategies allow us to consider the strategies proposed by researchers and teachers as necessary for the University? How do students' strategies relate to the different degrees they study? To what extent did virtual learning during covid lead to the emergence of other learning strategies?

The global economic landscape is ever in flux, and as such, there is constant demand for highly skilled workers (Nager & Atkinson, 2017). This is especially true in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related industries which represent the fastest growing sector of the global labor force (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020; Smit et al., 2020). However, less than one-third (28%) of bachelor’s degree STEM graduates ultimately work in a STEM-designated field in the United States (Day & Martinez, 2021), and the share of STEM programs graduates has declined in Europe for the past two decades (Bacovic et al., 2022), suggesting a weak STEM college-to-career pathway for students. These pathways have also been shown to unequally sort students from under-represented groups out of STEM fields and/or into gendered STEM roles for women (Funk & Parker, 2018).

Countries across the world have dedicated significant resources to combatting employment shortages in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), especially given the demand for STEM-related skills is only expected to increase in years to come (OECD, 2017). In the U.S., the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health have allocated significant financial support to undergraduate student success in STEM fields through undergraduate research programs. Such experiences equip students with research and critical thinking skills, support STEM major retention, and promote entrance to graduate school and research-based careers in STEM fields (NSB, 2018). Even non-STEM majors have reported that these experiences have increased their interest in STEM fields (Stanford et al., 2015). The design of undergraduate research experiences varies across and within institutions of higher education (IHEs), including summer research programs, volunteer lab positions, laboratory courses, and other “research-like” experiences.

Faculty-mentored undergraduate research experiences are standard in many colleges across the U.S. However, most of these experiences are highly selective and serve predominantly White male students from high-income backgrounds (Hu et al., 2008). Because these experiences are not widely accessible to most students (Balled et al., 2017; Bhattacharyya et al., 2020), there has been a recent push for universities to increase opportunities and access to undergraduate research opportunities through course-based undergraduate research (CUR). While the design of CUR varies across and within institutions, many have developed intensive, research-based courses that expose students to the process of research early in their college careers with faculty oversight (Auchincloss et al., 2014).

While researchers, universities, and policymakers widely accept CUR as an example of a scalable learning environment that can increase access to research opportunities, particularly for traditionally under-represented groups, there is limited research supporting this assertion. Moreover, the studies that do exist have data-related limitations, including narrow disciplinary focus, using data from a single institution, and relying on self-report measures of participation. The most striking limitation across many of the studies included the lack of addressing sources of selection bias. This issue arises because of the strong academic histories of students who are selected to participate in research experiences.

Given the recent push for universities to embed CUR in their curriculum, it is critical to understand which students are accessing such experiences. Additionally, understanding the characteristics of students participating int these experiences is important for understanding the sources of bias needed to model selection into undergraduate research. Drawing on the Texas statewide longitudinal data, the present study addresses the data-related shortcomings of previous studies to explore which student and institutional factors enable or constrain participation in CUR. Specifically, we ask:

1. What pre-college characteristics are related to the likelihood of participation in CUR?

1. Do these relationships differ by field of research (e.g., STEM vs. non-STEM?)

Every year, thousands of young graduates leave university without having a clear idea for their future employment/career pathways. Higher education’s role in preparing students to be well-rounded and ready for the workforce is becoming a mounting concern (Denman & James 2016), yet few data are readily available to indicate how teaching (course content) (Seely-Brown et. al 2001), employer needs, and additional learning and assessment needs work together to prepare graduates for the world of work (Scott 2016). Arguably, the alignment between education and employment is important if not vital for students being future-ready for the workforce. The value proposition of a higher education degree begs the question of the ‘global thinker’ and what that may entail. Notwithstanding the concern of what jobs will exist in five to ten years, students and prospective employers are actively seeking out what specialised skills they will need to possess for the foreseeable future.

Similarly, there have been a number of concepts proposed throughout the years that address the ‘innovative’ mind. But instead of building a well-rounded and strong liberal arts background using the familiar works of leading scholars in the disciplines, the emphasis is shifted towards the development and application of skills over time. Learning analytics to date have yet to consolidate and synthesize knowledge and experience through themes, patterns of development, and approaches.

In this paper, we argue for the need to shift towards more sustainable faculty development (FD) processes so that academics can become self-regulated, autonomous learners themselves and develop competences that allow them to design efficacious Inclusive Student-centred Pedagogy (ISCP) lessons in their context. Drawing on Hockings (2001), we define ISCP in Higher Education as proactive and intentional teaching and learning activities, course design, curricula and assessment that foster equity during carefully designed learner-centred opportunities for student engagement, self-awareness, self-regulation, and learner autonomy for all stakeholders in higher education; hence, ISCP does not label certain groups of students or individuals who may have additional needs but it attempts to meet all student needs proactively taking into account potential needs of all stakeholders without labelling (Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, 2022).

The Covid-19 pandemic created many challenges that higher education (HE) has to address (EU Commission Directorate, 2021) including the rapid digitalisation of education and the expression of often muted or suppressed academic voices. The digital transformation of education enhanced our awareness that some on-campus teaching models may not be appropriate as certain groups of students may be under-privileged. In this new landscape, academics ought to revise their teaching and their curricula, listening at the same time to voices that may have been unassumed, like those of students. Incorporating needs, plans and ambitions of all students, regardless of identity, ISCP can address such discrepancy in a context where everyone’s voice can be heard through all available means and students are viewed as equal partners (Cook-Sather, 2016). This need for educational change is highlighted and promoted throughout the EU through University alliances i.e. Circle.U or CIVIS and European Agencies promoting Inclusion i.e. EASIE. Academics’ role needs to adapt to becoming more responsible for cultivating an inclusive and equity-driven learning environment where all students can succeed academically (Whittaker & Montgomery, 2014) and improving ISCP teaching practices and faculty development (FD) interventions in Higher Education become imperative (Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, 2022).

Following top-down policy directives and despite faculty member resistance, faculty development (FD) modes entail organising formal learning cycles including teacher-fronted training sessions, lectures, seminars or hands-on workshops. Recent FD developments opt for modes that employ informal discussions among or between peers, peer coaching discussion prior to or after completion of peer-observation protocols and self-regulation tasks that require alignment of all syllabus components with ISCP pedagogies. Action research combined with reflective diaries or teacher portfolios also serve as a promising FD model. However, there is a yawning gap between teaching practices and policies as little attention has been given to academics’ pedagogical acuity following target faculty development (FD) modes. With this shift in mind and by systematically recording academics reflections and evaluations of existing formal, informal, typical and atypical formal development modes, COALITION partners, an international European project with six universities, aim to map emerging needs in terms of academics pedagogical acuity as well as overall readiness to embrace ISCP pedagogies by placing emphasis on the need to implement adequate schemes for pedagogical development that empower academics to teach in ISCP programmes with confidence.

In the last fifty years, transitions from university to work have become more difficult for young people, as reflected by longer periods of unemployment, job mismatches, and diversified pathways (Allen & vanDer Velden, 2007). The content of the learning objectives connected to the education and training systems, is changing, thus reflecting specific global priorities. A conclusive example is indicator 4.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals – according to which, by 2030, all graduates will acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to promote sustainable development. These strongly suggest that education and training systems should equip learners with skills such as problem solving, collaboration, critical thinking and communication. The focus on these "21st century goals" is visible in education, in general, and curriculum reforms, in particular, and has been promoted by global discussions about the changing needs of work and society as a whole.

These tendencies imposed a consistent debate, with philosophical nuances, related to the identity, roles and missions of the contemporary university. In this context, the controversies generated between utilitarian approaches and those with a more critical orientation were numerous and sometimes intense, generating resistance or producing transformations of principles. The central point of the debates was, explicitly or implicitly, the influence that the labor market should have on the mission of higher education and, of course, on its development agenda for a certain social and economic context (Rego et al, 2022). Such a controversy, in a post-industrial era and a growing knowledge economy, imposes answers to the question regarding the association between higher education and graduate employability (OECD, World Economic Forum, etc.). It should come as no surprise that the European Union, through the Bologna process, has prioritized both the competence-centered approach and employability in its higher education policies, supporting a line of research whose basic premise is to provide the theoretical basis and, wherever possible, to empirically validate the employability skills of university graduates (Rego & al, 2022).

The main concept is the term "21st century skills", that denotes a combination of skills that are important in a modern society and workforce, (Ercikan & Oliveri, 2016). The terms "transferable" (UNESCO, 2012) or "transversal" skills encompass some of the same skills that can be applied in multiple situations, as opposed to technical professional skills that are specific to certain occupations. In a world facing rapid technological and social change, this transversality/transferability is seen as increasingly important, as facilitating transition towards work (Kearns, 2001).

In our research project, we aim at doing a mapping exercise and understand the way transversal competencies are conceptualized in the curricular documents of three bachelor study programs, in the University of Bucharest, a public, large university from Eastern Europe: educational sciences / pedagogy, teacher training education and physics. In this sense, we identify the transversal skills already present in the study programs, but also those that are omitted, by referring to a competence framework developed by the research team based on a rigorous analysis of the literature. Our main research questions were: what sets of transversal competencies are in use in the curricular documents analyzed; what transversal competencies are present in different study programs and disciplines; what issues can we identify by analyzing transversal competencies, that are relevant to higher education and could be explored in next phases of our research. The finality of our study is curricular and practice change through the integration of transversal skills in the programs in the field of education and sciences, but also contribution to the international debate regarding transversal skills, as Hart et al (2021) emphasized that the concept is still understood in different and contradictory ways.

The transition into higher education has been the focus of both government policy and practice with a goal of a smooth transition in the context of increasing the diversity and population of students in higher education. For example, Hulme & De Wide (2015), who organised the transition into higher education in the STEM education department, found that there is now existing practice that attempts to smooth the transition, and that sharing good existing educational practice is a top priority for education stakeholders.

However, in recent years, researchers in the UK and in other countries have begun to criticize the traditional focus on a smooth transition into higher education. For instance, according to Ecclestone, Biesta, & Hughes (2010), 'while certain transitions are unsettling and difficult for some people, risk, challenge and even difficulty might also be important factors in successful transitions for others' (p.2). Moreover, an alternative concept called 'becoming' has been proposed to replace the traditional transition concept (Gale & Parker, 2014 & Gravett, 2021). It has been suggested that transition as becoming should be seen as 'perpetual series of fragmented movements involving whole-of-life fluctuations in lived reality or subjective experience, from birth to death' (Gale & Parker, 2014, p. 737). Besides, Gravett (2021) described the chrematistic of 'becoming' as (1) troublesome transitions, (2) transition as rhizomatic, and (3) transition as becoming. Thus, Gravett (2021) suggested a shift from a traditional paradigm of transition into framing of transition as becoming.

Given both the concept of transition and becoming, then, how can the concept of transition into higher education in Japan be reconstructed? Considering the oppositional structure between the traditional concept of transition and its alternative becoming, the following research questions are set out in this study.

RQ: How do Japanese students experience “transition into higher education”?

The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct existing concepts of transition into higher education. In general, in recent years, Japanese high school curriculum has established an interdisciplinary curriculum called 'inquiry-based learning' in addition to the regular curriculum of academic subjects. And Japanese universities offer liberal arts courses in the first and second year of university, and specialized courses in the third and fourth year of university. In Japanese universities, which differ from the structure of the European education system, this paper will clarify how Japanese students experience the transition into higher education compared with the transition into higher education in European countries in previous literature.

In interpreting students' transition and becoming, Gravett's (2021) three components of becoming (transition as troublesome, rhizomatic transition, transition as becoming) are used as an analytical framework. Specifically, this analytical framework includes “threshold concepts” proposed by Meyer and Land (2005) and concepts of the ‘rhizome’ and ‘becoming’ in "A Thousand Plateaus written by Deleuze and Guattari (1987). Meyer & Land (2005) state that struggling with threshold states to overcome the discomfort and difficulty felt when passing through transitional spaces is important in transforming students' understanding. Deleuze & Guattari (1987) stated that rhizomes mean that there are no uniform pathways, that transition is divergent, fluid, and multiple, and that becoming refers to the permanence of ongoing change.

Education and career pathways are extensively studied in the sociology of education and labor economics. Sociologists explore transitions between study and work within the framework of the life course perspective (Monaghan, 2020), paying special attention to the patterns of trajectories (Lorentzen et al, 2019) and transition regimes (Walther, 2006). Extensive literature in the sociology of education is devoted to the relationship between education and labor market outcomes and individual socioeconomic backgrounds. The latter is manifested by parental education, professional status, and income, as well as cultural capital. Also, socioeconomic status (SES) impacts educational and career aspirations–low SES students have lower aspirations than their counterparts from a more advantaged background (Kim, Klager, Schneider, 2019). In various countries, there is empirical evidence that low SES is a strong predictor for lower levels of educational attainment and labor market outcomes (Walpole, 2003). In due turn, labor economists focus on the labor market outcomes of the trajectory, returns on investments in human capital, and its determinants. Drawing from the human capital theory, the accumulation of more human capital–a higher level of educational attainment, stronger cognitive abilities, and noncognitive skills, combining studies and work– positively impact labor market outcomes (Nilsson, 2019) and could make school-to-work transition smoother.

Typically, event history and regression analysis methods are used to examine educational pathways. However, such methods commonly examine only unique transitions rather than full sequences of steps in education and employment. With the growing popularity of longitudinal data, sequence analysis accompanied by logistic regression analysis has become the option to overcome this limitation and explore trajectories in their complexity. A number of international, especially European, empirical studies have incorporated sequence analysis in the investigations of youth transitions (see e.g., Brzinsky-Fay, 2007; Quintini & Manfredi, 2009; Lorentzen et al. 2019). However, only a few studies employing sequence analysis on representative samples specifically examine the trajectories of university graduates (Duta, Wielgoszewska, Iannelli, 2021).

Using data from the Russian national cohort longitudinal study "Trajectories in Education and Career, this study aims to untangle the nine-year education-career pathways of 9th-grade students who have received higher education by the age of 25. In Russia, bachelor's and master's degrees were introduced in 2009, though master's programs have anchored and proliferated across universities only recently, in the mid-2010-s. Thus, the cohort participating in this longitudinal study is the one experiencing the newly established educational options. Our study aims to identify the different types of pathways followed by Russian graduates in their journey from school to higher education and to work and explore the factors contributing to different pathways. We investigate pathways following the sociological approach and methodology of sequence analysis but considering the key findings of labor economists, thus embracing the framework of the socioeconomic background and educational inequalities and the human capital theory. We investigate how socioeconomic status and aspirations, as well as academic abilities and personal characteristics, and an extended set of socio-demographic factors, shape students’ paths through postsecondary education and the world of work. By considering how different factors shape not just specific transitions but long-term sequences of educational-employment states, we broaden our understanding of who follows certain paths and why.

Traumatic experiences differ from highly stressful events due to their characteristics such as threatening bodily integrity and personal exposure to death. Therefore, these events can impact human psychology and well-being. For years, the adverse effects of trauma have been studied in the field of psychology and psychiatry (Tedeschi et al., 1998). However, a growing body of literature has shown that some people may be more resilient than the pre-traumatic period (Groleau et al., 2013; Lindstrom et al., 2013, Park et al., 2012).

Tedeschi and Calhoun (2004) constructed a holistic model that includes personal, social, and trauma-related factors to explain the phenomenon, termed “post-traumatic growth (PTG)”. According to this model people have core beliefs about themselves, others, and life that guide people and help them make sense of life. A traumatic event can shake the structure of these assumptions, thus creating the need for restructuring. PTG emerges from the restructuring process. According to the model, growth is a highly personal process rather than a direct outcome that can start with the disruption of core beliefs rather than the event itself (Calhoun et al., 2010). Lindstrom et al. (2013), found a strong significant positive relationship between PTG and disruption of core beliefs. Similar results have been found in cross-sectional studies (Calhoun et al., 2010; Eze et al., 2020; Taku et al., 2015), and longitudinal ones (Danhauer et al.,2013; Ramos et al., 2018).

The theoretical model emphasizes that personal variables such as coping mechanisms are also important factors affecting PTG (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Coping with stress can be defined as the process of managing emotional requisitions arising from events perceived as stressful in person-environment interaction (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Fisher et al. (2020) found that active and supportive strategies were positively associated with PTG, while avoidant strategies were negatively related to it. On the other hand, some research emphasizes that active, supportive, and avoidant strategies like denial were positively related to PTG (Lelorain et al., 2010; Park et al., 2012). These findings show that coping mechanisms are important predictors of PTG.

Contemporary PTG literature focuses on another important variable named “event centrality”. Event centrality refers to the extent to which the memory of an event becomes a central part of people's identity, a fulcrum for understanding everyday life, and a turning point in life (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006). Groleau et al. (2013) found that event centrality was a significant predictor of PTG even after controlling for rumination and disruption of core beliefs. Similarly, Bernard et al. (2015) indicated that event centrality was a significant predictor of PTG. All of these findings show that coping mechanisms, event centrality, and disruption of core beliefs have crucial roles in the creation of PTG and therefore were used as variables in this study.

This study aimed to determine the predictors of PTG levels of university students with trauma experience in light of the current literature. Traumatic experiences are quite common around the world (Kessler et al., 2017) and can influence the academic experience and even university graduation in the long run (Lecy & Osteen, 2022). Therefore, understanding the predictors of PTG can shape psychological help, facilitate growth and well-being, and thus ensure the success and continuation of the higher education process. Event centrality is a relatively contemporary variable that has not been sufficiently studied in Turkish culture, therefore another aim is to understand its relationship with PTG in Turkish culture. According to these aims, a research question has been created; Do the disruption of core beliefs, stress coping mechanisms, and event centrality predict PTG?

All networks hold a meeting during ECER. All interested are welcome.

In recent years, universities throughout Europe have undergone a major transformation process. This is mainly due to two elements. On the one hand, the beginning of the so-called European Higher Education Area (Michavila et al., 2011); and on the other hand, accelerated digitisation in education, which has been enhanced as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic (Gallagher et al., 2021).

These changes have also implied or evidenced the need for modifications in the didactic methodologies used and the conceptions of the Teaching-Learning (T-L) processes. In a way, the more traditional models of education (those centred on the transmission of knowledge in which the student had a passive role) have become obsolete. Nowadays, it is possible to move towards more active T-L options in which the learner becomes the centre of the process. This conception of the T-L process is also in line with the much-needed approach to lifelong learning and competence-based learning (Baartman et al., 2007).

It is important to take into consideration the role that the digital competence of university professors acquires today in their reconciliation with their research career, since it can be assumed that there are more and more "increased-researchers". In other words, someone who knows how to find the professional opportunities offered by their own personal learning environment (PLE) to learn in all aspects, individually and collectively, sharing knowledge with others, without detaching themselves from their mission and social commitment to their professional work (Castañeda and Adell, 2013).

The active role of the teacher can be considered as an essential engine to start adapting their educational proposals to the demands of today's liquid society (Bauman, 2003), emphasizing that the provision of technological resources is not enough to guarantee success and educational innovation (Sánchez-López et al., 2021).

However, although this need for change is gradually becoming more evident and clearer, the COVID-19 pandemic was also a reality check. During the period of online lessons, it was reflected that there is still a long way to go to reach a good use of digital tools in E-A processes (Esteve-Mon et al., 2022). This is mainly due to aspects related to: (1) the digital skills of teachers and their motivation; (2) the organisation of the educational centre; (3) the pedagogical culture that exists; and (4) the resources to which they have access.

It is essential to shed some light on the development of pedagogical digital competence (PDC), which we defined by From (2017: 48) as: “Pedagogical Digital Competence refers to the ability to consistently apply the attitudes, knowledge and skills required to plan and conduct, and to evaluate and revise on an ongoing basis, ICT-supported teaching, based on theory, current research and proven experience with a view to supporting students’ learning in the best possible way”.According to this context, this research focuses on exploring methodological trends in university classrooms when digital technologies are integrated into them. And, according to this, we want to answer the following research questions:

RQ1. Which countries publish on the topic?

RQ2. In which period there are more publications related to the topic?

RQ3. What didactic methodologies are used when TD are integrated in university classrooms?

For more than two decades, the concept of self-regulation and self-regulated learning has received a great deal of attention in the scientific discourse of educational science, due to its proposed positive relationship with students' learning outcomes (Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011). To date, several different definitions and models of self-regulation and self-regulated learning have been proposed (Panadero, 2017), leading to some theoretical fragmentation and confusion. Nevertheless, most definitions and models consider self-regulated learning as a cyclical process consisting of three phases: 1) the preparatory phase, 2) the performance phase (i.e., the phase of actual task performance), and 3) the reflective or the appraisal phase. Within each of these three general phases, students then engage in a range of cognitive, affective and metacognitive processes (Panadero, 2017; Wong et al., 2019; Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).

Since the existing research suggests that students engaging in self-regulated learning are able to efficiently manage their own learning and perform better on learning tasks, leading to their academic success (Boekaerts, Pintrich & Zeidner, 2000; McInerney et al., 2012), researchers have focused on different support mechanisms or scaffolds in order to help students engage in effective self-regulation during learning. The need for external support for students' ability to regulate their own learning seems to be particularly important in the context of online learning and learning from digital media, due to the higher demands on the students' autonomy and their competence to navigate themselves in complex multimedia learning materials (Wong et al., 2019).

One of the proposed mechanisms to support self-regulated learning that has received increased research attention, especially in recent years, is metacognitive prompting. Prompts in general can be seen as a temporary support mechanism or scaffold for students in order to assist them in the use of an appropriate learning strategy (Bannert, 2009). Metacognitive prompts, in contrast to cognitive prompts, focus on engaging students in higher-level learning strategies such as goal setting, monitoring, reflection, etc. A considerable amount of available studies provide evidence for the effectiveness of metacognitive prompts in improving students' learning outcomes (Azevedo et al., 2011; Devolder, van Braak, & Tondeur, 2012; Guo, 2022; Manlove, Lazonder, & de Jong, 2009).

Although current research suggests that metacognitive prompts can stimulate the use of higher-order learning strategies and thereby improve learning outcomes, it still remains unclear whether and to what extent metacognitive prompts improve students' learning outcomes, and how this relationship changes in the context of learning from multimedia learning materials. The aim of this paper is therefore to present the results of an experiment focusing on the use of metacognitive prompts in the context of multimedia learning. The aim of the experiment was to investigate the effects of metacognitive prompts on students' learning outcomes and whether these effects varied according to the type of learning material (i.e., text vs. multimedia).

Due to neoliberal ideologies, NPM, accountability systems, and market-oriented management of the public sector, there has been a political effort over the past decades to rationalise and streamline education; for example by making standards and formats for education and teaching courses in higher education. This has happened as part of a global competition for the best possible educational output for the least money possible (Biesta et al., 2015, 2011; Green, 2010; Mausethagen & Smeby, 2016). This international development has also taken place in the Danish education system, including University Colleges. Wanting to reduce costs is by no means new, nor that teachers share each other’s teaching plans in less formalised forms, but it might prove problematic when and if instructional/learning designs are formalised to a high degree and become standards rather than being created on a more voluntary basis and made flexible in relation to reusing.

Within a Nordic didactic tradition, teacher autonomy is given a very high value, and therefore there is reason to warn against the idea that teaching can be produced in packages that others can open and use directly in new contexts. On the other hand, there is also reason to address potential bias within learning designs. For example, that reusing learning designs is always a straitjacket, which requires that the design must be performed as it, is without the possibility of modification and context adaptation.

This paper draws on two completed research projects and one ongoing project in which we have taken a critical, but constructive view of learning designs. Our research interest has been to uncover the possibilities of utilising a design’s resources in the form of qualified pedagogical ideas and reflections on the part of the designers, but at the same time preserve a pedagogical space with the teachers who stand as those who have to use the design. This is a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, a design must appear pedagogically well-crafted and with well-communicated pedagogical instructions so that the designers’ competence can benefit the reusers. On the other hand, the design must not be too restrictive and dictating as this leaves no room for the reusing teachers’ pedagogical adaptation of the design to their own teaching context. Therefore, it is all about finding a balance. The question that we investigate in this paper is therefore: Which factors determine the extent to which a pedagogical space for the reuse of learning designs is achieved?

We have constructed the theoretical framework with a background in literature studies. This has shown that in the research field of learning designs there has been limited attention to the problems that arise when teachers other than the designers have to take over the design, make sense of it and bring it to life. Our theoretical framework combines different traditions. The concept of ‘context sensitivity’ has been an important premise for our approach to learning design as our starting point is that no two contexts are ever exactly the same. Teaching is first and foremost an interpersonal and situated practice that cannot be anticipated as such but unfolds in the meeting between the teacher and the student about a content (Oettingen, 2010). This requires a degree of autonomy and that the teacher can act as a reflective practitioner who makes professional judgements (Wackerhausen, 2008; Hedegaard & Krogh-Jespersen 2011). It is therefore always necessary to some extent to translate a design before it can be used in another context. Therefore, our analyses also include concepts of knowledge transfer and translation with inspiration, partly from actor network theory (ANT) (Callon, 1984; Latour, 1996) and partly Scandinavian institutionalism (Røvik, 2016).

Supporting students’ agency and developing teaching practices is significant to respond to the current demands in higher education (HE) and work-life (Eteläpelto, 2013; Jääskelä, 2021). Agency can be seen as a core component of lifelong learning ability and coping with uncertainty (Su, 2011), and therefore significant in successful changes or transitions of conditions in educational path. Student agency is dynamic and contextual and has been theorized in different fields with a different emphasis such as individual choice or intentions, capabilities or capacity for self-reflection, as well as power structures or discourses (Eteläpelto, 2013). In discussions emphasizing actions within historical life-course, temporal aspects of agency have been raised up (e.g., Emirbayer & Mische, 1998; Hitlin & Kirkpatric Johnson, 2015) that involve the dynamics of past and present experiences, as well as with future orientation, which are context- and time-specific, also including the aspects of life outside studies. Therefore, the student agency can relate to earlier experiences in educational path, current contexts of learning, as well as future orientations.

Earlier Jääskelä et al. (2017; 2020) developed a multidimensional scale (AUS) to measure individual, relational and contextual resources of agency in HE course context with an online questionnaire. They defined student agency in HE “in terms of access to (and use of) resources for purposeful action in study contexts, i.e., as students’ experienced or interpreted individual, interactional and contextual resources to engage in intentional and meaningful action and learning”. As a result of profile analysis, Jääskelä et al. (2020) detected subgroups of students according to their experiences of agency in university courses. They found four different latent profiles of student agency from the data collected from 10 university courses: students with lower than average agency, average level agency, average with low participatory agency and higher than average agency. Jääskelä et al. (2020) concluded that agency experiences of the profile groups were significantly different according to form of instruction in the course, and developing teaching practices fostering participatory role of the student, but also increasing student awareness on agency during studies are needed. Therefore, to increase the student awareness on agency, Jääskelä et al. (2021) utilized learning analytics techniques to the data to visualize the results of the AUS -scale to benefit the learners as a basis for self-reflections. Therefore, AUS scale with agency analytics can be used as a tool in pedagogical development to support student agency.

While data collected through the AUS questionnaire offer a general picture about student agency experiences in the context, more in-depth knowledge is needed to describe how students themselves explain the changes in the individual, relational and contextual experiences, and how these are associated with earlier experiences in life related to education and learning. Therefore, there is need for research on how students’ agency experiences in HE are related to earlier learning experiences and contexts, to facilitate a fluent transition to higher education and to work, and to support the development of student agency during HE studies.

The aim of this study is to describe first year students’ perceptions on how experiences in earlier education, starting the studies in higher education and in a course during the first fall of studies in HE are reflected in agency. We will also see how students explain the changes in the dimensions of agency during a course in the first semester of their studies.

The investigation of students’ pathways at the university is closely related to the topic of dropout and success in higher education.

There are several possible theoretical explanations for social differences in educational attainment that is correlated with the students’ pathways at the university. According to the rational action theory approach (Boudon 1974), family background has primary and secondary effects on education choice. Reproduction of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1973; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977; Becker 1975) forms the primary impact. Secondary effect occurs during the educational decision-making process: students and parents rationally calculate the balance of cost and the benefit of different education paths and choose the most advantageous track. Since students with lower social status have to travel a longer distance towards higher education from their origin, they calculate with a higher cost, so they have different results in their investment-returns calculations.

Goldthorpe and Breen (1997) developed Boudon's rational action theory approach. According to it, during educational decision-making the final goal of students is not the absolute-measured education level but to avoid social downgrading. Since absolute measured goals of different classes are dissimilar, universal scheme of balancing costs and benefits leads to a different result depending on social origin. The higher education relevance of this approach is that in case of an eventual failure, tertiary educated parents’ children are more inclined to stay in higher education for a longer period of time and attempt different study pathways in order to achieve their final goal of university degree.

The expansion of higher education, flexible forms of training and the pull/push out effect of the labor market often lead to a fragmented, non-linear student life paths (Hagedorn 2004; Lee and Buckthorpe 2008; Hovdhaugen et al 2015). Analysis of university study outcomes (successful completion, retention or drop out) can lead to significantly different results in individual-level and course-based analyses. E.g. in course-based analyses students who leave their starting course and continue their studies in another track are considered to be dropped out, while from the point of view of individual level they are continuing their higher education.

Most of the previous analyses of student pathways are not individual but course-based, that may shelter successful non-linear study tracks. (Tinto 1993; Hagedorn 2004, Robinson 2004; Kuh et al., 2006, Tumen et al 2008; Reason 2009; Thomas, L., and E. Hovdhaugen. 2014; Tight 2020; Pusztai 2015; Hovdhaugen et al 2015; Helland and Hovdhaugen 2022; Aina et al 2022)

The aim of our research is to discover the patterns of individual student study pathways, as well as to explore the influencing factors of study pathways.

Our main hypothesis is that although a significant proportion of the students drop out of the program they originally started, but they eventually obtain a higher education through a different (detour) route. According to our hypothesis, majority of students who follow the fragmented but finally successful student path have higher-status family background. Students from lower-status families typically either take a linear student path to a lower-value program or drop out within a relatively short period of time.

While our analysis is based on data of a single country, the added value of national-level data construction allows us to examine a more universal research question concerning the general mechanism of influencing factors on student pathways. That has a great relevance concerning the social and institutional dimension of higher education success and failure in Europe.

The Irish Higher Education system has undergone significant structural change in the past three years, culminating in the re-designation of the majority of the Institutes of Technology (IoTs) as Technological Universities (TUs). Following a process of amalgamation, a pre-cursor to re-designation, only two of the fourteen IoTs remain, alongside five TUs. This change effectively erased the binary divide in Irish HE.

The Technological University Research Network report described the nature of future TUs as follows:

'establishing high-quality higher education institutions (HEIs) of scale that build an international profile for technological higher education, intensify the mission, purpose and values of Institutes of Technology (IoTs) to achieve sufficient scale, quality and impact to drive regional economic, social and cultural development' (HEA, TURN, 2019, p.4).

Technological Universities and the Technological Higher Education sector provides HE programmes from Higher Certificate to Doctoral level. The sector is characterised by strong regional connectedness, serving a relatively high proportion of part-time and flexible learners, as well as traditional full-time undergraduate students. Historically, it would also have served a high proportion of students who were first in their families to attend HE.

Higher Education in Ireland receives significant funding from the State, which uses student progression and retention figures (HEA, 2019) as one of the key indicators of system and institute performance. While what constitutes good or poor retention depends on comparators, such figures are typically used as a barometer against which to consider Institute and country performance (Gabi and Sharpe, 2021).

The research sought to investigate the thorny issue of retention in an Irish IoT, which was subsequently re-designated as a Technological University.The aim of this study was to explore the factors that contribute to persistence in an IoT, by investigating how persistence decisions were made by students, and how these decisions were informed by their HE expectations and experiences. It explored the role of the student and the role of the institute in achieving successful outcomes.

The research questions were:

1. What identifiable factors contribute to persistence in higher education? And to what extent does programme choice, if at all, influence persistence and programme completion?
2. How and under what conditions (e.g. institutional, cultural, socio-personal, programmatic etc) do these factors become manifest within the context of Irish Higher Education and specifically within the context of programmes that are typical of the Institutes of Technology?
3. How do students stated intentions to study, goals and objectives influence their persistence throughout the duration of a programme of study in an Institute of Technology? To what extent, if at all, do these objectives change or become modified during their engagement with the Institute?
4. From a student perspective, how does, if at all, motivation and expectations of 1) themselves and 2) the Institute change over the course of the programme of study?

The research explored persistence across a heterogeneous student body, rather than with the intention of dis-aggregating the findings by a particular student type. James (2015) refers to the ‘species’ approach to the study of students, for example, mature students, online students. The research aimed to identify common themes or differences among a student body that would typically be found on programmes in the Technological Higher Education sector, and abstract these findings to a wider student body. It amalgamates the theoretical perspectives of Vincent Tinto (1975, 1993, 2012) and Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1984, 1988; Grenfell, 2014; Grenfell and James, 1998). The work of both authors has been described as paradigmatic, and while they are associated with different aspects of HE, there is common ground in the areas of congruence, fit and the ability to feel like a fish in water.

Russia’s war in Ukraine has drawn Western European attention to the interrelationship between Eastern, Central, and Western Europe and raised questions about realignments within Europe that might see a shift of geopolitical concerns more towards Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. Even before the war Emil Brix and Erhard Busek proposed that the future of Europe lies in the dynamics of policy and practice in Central Europe. This argument can be extended to include Eastern Europe. The war and various debates around it ask us all to consider the question of Europe not from its traditional centres in Western and Northwest Europe, but from Central and Eastern Europe and reflect on the questions and central concerns this presents.

The challenge posed by the symposium is, what might European higher education policy options look like when conceptualised through the historical experiences of CEE. This reverses the usual flow of policy trajectories and forces us to consider that the future of European higher education might be organised around different policy logics or scholarly concerns.

Research performativity (rankings, citation indexes, etc.) have been critiqued for producing distorting effects in academic practice and knowledge including the underrepresentation of the arts, humanities and some areas of the social sciences, and the relative invisibility of non-English language publications, in rankings and publication metrics , the encouragement of instrumental behaviours whereby scoring high against research performance indicators becomes an objective in its own right, influencing choice of research topic, what to write, and where to publish , and the impact on modes of knowledge, theories, and intellectual traditions in the non-core regions of Europe . These contribute to asymmetries in terms of academic collaboration, recognition, circulation of ideas as well as the economic and linguistic hindrances for non-core researchers and their institutions to gain greater visibility and acknowledgement internationally.

Normative higher education policy and policy scholarship frames the development of CEE in terms of policy emanating from the centres of global higher education and CEE aligning with these. In this framing CEE higher education is seen as modernising through an alignment with the centres of global higher education. This suggests an asymmetrical relationship between the two regions. For instance, scholars from CEE have argued that when viewed from Central and Eastern Europe the process of system harmonization driven by the Bologna process looks different. In CEE states Bologna was more than a process of system standardisation, being part of a broader economic and political transformation in the region, interacting with new ideas of national identity and the creation/recreation of nation-states, and highlighted the economic and infrastructural disparity between CEE and Western Europe. Therefore, looking at the project of system harmonization as it is experienced from Europe’s eastern boundaries provides a different way of understanding what harmonization might mean.

The symposium therefore discusses,

• The way CEE became a particular kind of object of inquiry for higher education policy research, flattening the differences between the systems of higher education in the varied political contexts of Central and Eastern Europe (Monika Orechova)
• How ‘European’ internationalisation of research confronts the particular conditions of higher education institutions in CEE states and how they vary due to different foci, policy approaches and historical legacies (Liudvika Leisyte), and
• What a different kind of higher education policy research approach can offer that responds positively to listening to CEE experiences (Simon Warren).

A cursory glance over education scholarship over the past 30 years, reveals a peculiar distinction. Out of all the articles available in the ERIC (Education Resource Information Center) database, published between 1990 and 2020, 562 articles bear some variation of the moniker ‘Central and Eastern Europe’ in the title. Curiously, ‘Western Europe’ appears in 71 articles, most of them (37) dating back to the period from 1990 to 2000. This means that the former is used almost 8 times as often as the latter. Such exceptional grouping together of a significant part of continental Europe is rarely questioned, though it merits a deeper discussion (Nygård & Strang, 2017). While on the surface it may seem a geographical distinction, the precise countries and their groups which are referred to as such in publications differ greatly. Moreover, nearly none of such grouping is observed for other parts of Europe. Whenever the title of an article refers to ‘Europe’, it is reasonable to expect that the research presented comes from the western part of the continent, however, if it comes from the central or eastern part (geographically speaking), ‘Europe’ usually needs a qualifier. There are several practical reasons for this practice, for example, in light of international publishing requirements, it is now often used by scholars based in the region as it helps to expand readership and improve one’s chances of publication, especially when research in smaller countries of the region is concerned. Yet, we believe that it tends to epistemically lump together vastly different countries with different social contexts, histories and approaches to education (Dakowska, 2017). Moreover, it also poses Central and Eastern Europe as an ‘other’ inside of Europe wherein (Western) Europe is considered the norm and (Central and Eastern) Europe remains relevant to the extent it strives to reach that norm as it was expected to do during the transition period (Cerych, 1995). This paper endeavours to interrogate the early conception of the notion of Central and Eastern Europe by analysing the international scholarship in higher education research from 1990 to 2000. We aim to elucidate the emergence of Central and Eastern Europe as a research unit and critically interrogate its discursive construction as the ‘other’ in opposition with the dominant concept of ‘Europe’.

Cerych, L. (1995). Educational reforms in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Education, 30(4), 423–435. Dakowska, D. (2017). Competitive universities? The impact of international and European trends on academic institutions in the ‘New Europe.’ European Educational Research Journal, 16(5), 588–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116688024 Nygård, S., & Strang, J. (2017). Conceptual universalization and the role of the peripheries. Contributions to the History of Concepts, 12(1), 55–75. https://doi.org/10.3167/choc.2017.120105

Internationalisation is perceived as crucial by policy makers and university managers, especially in small higher education systems, as it helps gain legitimacy and encourages policy learning as well as capacity building for these systems and their higher education institutions. At the same time, studies have shown that implementation of internationalisation is not a straightforward process in different systems due to different academic disciplinary cultures and traditions, closure of academic communities and their resistance to internationalisation when it is perceived as a threat (Leišytė, Želvys, 2022; Leišytė, Želvys, Zenkienė, 2009). This contribution focuses on the academics’ views on their institutional focus on research excellence and internationalisation and to what extent they are involved in international research activities in three small higher education systems – Lithuania, Croatia and Slovenia (Flander et al. 2022). Based on the international APIKS survey data (2022), we draw on the surveyed academics at research universities in the three Central and Central Europe systems. The findings show that even though internationalisation of research and research excellence rhetoric is high on the policy agenda across the studied higher education systems, the implications for institutions and individual academics vary due to different foci, policy approaches and historical legacies. We especially discuss differences and similarities among academic views by gender, academic rank and discipline.

Leišytė, L. & Želvys, R. (2021). International perspectives on transforming management of higher education [Sonderheft]. Acta Paedagogica Vilnensia, 46. https://www.journals.vu.lt/acta-paedagogica-vilnensia/article/view/24847/24058 Leišytė, L., Želvys, R. & Zenkienė, L. (2015). Re-contextualization of the Bologna process in Lithuania. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(1), Special Issue: Europeanization, Internationalization and Higher Education Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe, 49–67. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2014.951669 Flander, A., Kočar, S., Ćulum Ilić, B., Leišytė, L., Pekşen, S. & Rončević, N. (2022). Impact of internationalisation strategies on academics' international research activities: Case study of the three HE peripheries: Slovenia, Croatia and Lithuania. In M. Klemenčič (Ed.), From actors to reforms in European higher education: A Festschrift for Pavel Zgaga (S. 313–336). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09400-2_22

The contribution argues that policy oriented higher education studies (HES) would benefit from a transnational historical approach that decentres or parochializes the idea of Europe. HES largely reflects the global structure of knowledge production in that it is dominated by the research concerns and analytical interests of Western European and North American academia. CEE scholars often feel required to publish in internationally prestigious journals, and therefore publish in English, to frame analysis in line with dominant Euro/American theories and find that local or regional concerns are constructed as parochial and marginal. HES can often work with form of Eurocentrism that construes Western Europe as the pinnacle of modernisation in contrast to the backward and tradition-constrained East. Policy scholarship can therefore suggest that CEE higher education needs to ‘modernise’ by aligning with models that reflect the global centres of knowledge production. The modern scientific system does not simply emanate from the centres of global knowledge production in the UK, Western Europe, or America and diffuse voluntaristically to the rest of the world simply because of its inherent superiority, but is linked to historically constituted structures of power, empire, and epistemological dominance that produce spatial distributions of knowledge production and consumption globally and within Europe. The paper explores a number of strategies for reconfiguring HES that can alter the epistemic relationship between Western Europe and CEE. Transnational theme: Use transnational themes from global higher education discourses such as student mobility, internationalization, university rankings; Situate these in transnational themes drawn from transnational historical or social scientific scholarship such as processes of nation or empire building. Transnational space: Situate the research in regional constellations; Geopolitical spaces such as empires or the Cold War. Parochializing Europe: Foregrounding issues of power, empire/colonialism, and geopolitics; Defining transnational spaces, units of analysis, or periodization to enable new perspectives on phenomenon. Periodization: Defining the temporal span to explore the generation of policy ideas, strategies, and rationales as well as rejected alternatives; Working with multiple or layered temporalities and examine how they converge at certain historical moments to create the conditions for specific policy options. Unit of analysis and methodological nationalism: Recognize that spatial/political categories (nation/state) are categories of practice that sustain particular power relations The presentation will illustrate this framework with examples drawn from peripheralized zones of Europe, specifically system harmonisation related to Eastern Europe and student mobility in Southern Europe.

Brubaker, R. (2013). Categories of analysis and categories of practice: a note on the study of Muslims in European countries of immigration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(1), 1–8. Hansen, P. (2002). European Integration, European Identity and the Colonial Connection. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(4), 483–498. Kozma, T., Rébay, M., Óhidy, A., & Szolár, É. (2014). The Bologna Process in Central and Eastern Europe. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Patel, K. K. (2013). Provincialising European union: Co-operation and Integration in Europe in a Historical Perspective. Contemporary European History, 22(4), 649–673. Warren, S. (2022) A Transnational Historical Approach to Researching Global Higher Education Policy. In M.Tight and J.Huisman (Eds.) Theory and Method in Higher Education Research, Volume 8, 41–60, Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: nation-state building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334. Zarycki, T. (2014) Ideologies of Eastness in Central and Eastern Europe. Vol. 96. London: Routledge.

As noted in the Research Handbook on the Transformation of Higher Education (Leisyte, Dee, & van der Meulen, 2023), higher education transformation has been widely discussed and debated, but the resulting picture remains clouded by multiple, sometimes contradictory perspectives. As argued in the introductory chapter (Dee, van der Meulen, & Leisyte, 2023), some research suggests that higher education has already undergone a massive transformation, as technologies, markets, and government policies have yielded significant changes in the daily operations of universities (Deem, Hillyard, & Reed, 2007; Geiger, 2004; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). Other studies, however, note that higher education is a highly institutionalized field where the rate of change is low, norms and traditions exalt the status quo, and decoupled organizational structures forestall new initiatives (Krücken, 2003; Rehberg, 2009).

These contradictions and paradoxes have been discussed in five streams of literature: 1) warnings about the effects of neoliberal and managerial transformations, 2) reminders that traditional academic norms and values are alive and well, 3) praises for the potential of disruptive innovations and transformative technologies for improving quality and efficiency, 4) blueprints for college and university managers to transform their institutions, and 5) concerns that higher education transformation has merely exacerbated the stratification and inequalities that have long characterized many systems (Dee, van der Meulen, & Leisyte, 2023). This panel aims to shed light on these streams, addressing some of the new actors fostering higher education transformation, as well as delving into the processes of change and resistance at higher education institutions.

To conceptualize the role of higher education actors in transformation, we draw upon Wheatley’s (2006) notion that transformational change occurs through coevolutionary processes that involve complex and iterative interactions among internal and external stakeholders. In higher education, transformation is often the result of intertwined efforts by multiple actors in formal venues (multi-actor governance systems and planned change), as well as through informal and spontaneous interactions that generate emergent change. This nexus of intertwined interests and interactions – internal and external, planned and emergent – suggests that there are possibilities for enhancing collaboration among actors at multiple levels who seek to transform higher education. Another possibility, however, is that these intertwined interests simply reflect a convergence in the priorities of elite actors. Under those conditions, transformations occur, but the residual effects only deepen the stratification and inequality of higher education.

Collectively, the presentations in this first part of the symposium offer in-depth analyses of the socio-political, technological, and market forces that are transforming higher education. The authors provide a multi-level perspective on higher education transformation by conceptualizing change at the field, system, and organizational levels. Furthermore, we identify core concepts and theories that scholars can use to conduct further research on higher education transformation.

This contribution focuses on the influence of new investment actors in higher education transformation (Williamson & Komljenovic, 2022). Historically, investors were hesitant to invest in the education sector due to low returns, long investment cycles, fragmented markets, heavy regulation, and public hesitancy towards privatisation. This has changed with the emergence and growth of educational technology (Edtech) akin to other sectors in the digital economy, further accelerated by the pandemic (Teräs et al., 2020). Education via Edtech is seen to have an enormous opportunity for growth among investors as one of the last sectors that have not yet been digitalised. Digital education technology is rapidly expanding in higher education and profoundly changing teaching and learning processes, management of higher education institutions, and subjectivities of staff and students (Decuypere et al., 2021). We argue that investors are crucial actors in digitalising higher education by deciding which products and services will be developed and influencing the business models behind those products. Their influence goes beyond allocating capital for innovation. They also conduct studies, issue reports, educate entrepreneurs and other actors, organise networking, work with policymakers, and more (Williamson and Komljenovic 2022). Therefore, investment and consequent actions are as much political decisions about the future as they are financial decisions about funding startup companies. What can and cannot exist is determined by an investment decision (Feher, 2018), and investors seek to materialise particular visions of futures through very laborious actions that follow investment (Muniesa et al., 2017). In this contribution, I empirically focus on Emerge Education, a UK-based seed investor. It has already penetrated the higher education sector by investing in a portfolio of digital products and services, partnering with key organisations and stakeholders, creating guidelines targeted at university leaders, and offering advice to education startup entrepreneurs. By mobilising theoretical and methodological resources from the sociology of markets and critical data studies, I present an analysis of Emerge Education as an exemplar of how new education technology investors are seeking to transform higher education via digitalisation.

Decuypere, M., Grimaldi, E., & Landri, P. (2021). Critical studies of digital education platforms. Critical Studies in Education, 62(1), 1–16. Feher, M. (2018). Rated agency: Investee politics in a speculative age. Zone Books. Muniesa, F., Doganova, L., Ortiz, H., Pina-Stranger, A., Paterson, F., Bourgoin, A., Ehrenstein, V., Juven, P.-A., Pontille, D., Sarac-Lesavre, B., Yon, G., & Méadel, C. (2017). Capitalization: A Cultural Guide. Mines ParisTech. Teräs, M., Suoranta, J., Teräs, H., & Curcher, M. (2020). Post-Covid-19 Education and Education Technology ‘Solutionism’: A Seller’s Market. Postdigital Science and Education, 2(3), 863–878. Williamson, B., & Komljenovic, J. (2022). Investing in imagined digital futures: The techno-financial ‘futuring’ of edtech investors in higher education. Critical Studies in Education, 0(0), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2022.2081587

This paper discusses the transformation of university governance through the introduction of new types of internal management structures through strategic councils. Through interviews with internal stakeholders at three Swedish universities with varying structural characteristics and disciplinary profiles, the study investigates how different interests and groups interface in university-wide councils and what implications their interactions carry for the traditional management structures within the line organization as well as the collegium, and for the ability of universities to cope with conflicting demands. The material is interpreted through a dual-layer framework where the perspectives of the interviewees are compared to a trustee-delegate spectrum of representativeness (Karlsson, 2013), and the roles of the strategic councils are viewed through a combined lens of resource dependence theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003) and organisational hypocrisy (Brunsson, 2006).

Brunsson, N. (2006). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations. Malmö: Liber. Karlsson, M. (2013). Covering Distance: Essays on Representation and Political Communication. (Doctoral dissertation, Örebo University). Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

This chapter discusses an important governance issue that has unfairly received little attention in higher education studies. It concerns the proliferation of agencies, commonly referred to as agencification. In higher education, research on system-level governance typically focuses on the (changed) relationship between government and institutions. Other key stakeholders such as agencies receive less attention, even though their influence on the system is clearly discernible. Agencies are (have become) key players in the complex and iterative interactions between internal and external stakeholders, which collectively help shape transformations in higher education. As the (empirical) HE studies on this topic are very limited, this contribution focuses on experiences from other public sectors to draw lessons from them for higher education, resulting in a research agenda for governance research in higher education to better understand the possible effects of the changing role of agencies

Bach, T., Niklasson, B., & Painter, M. (2012). The role of agencies in policy-making. Policy and Society, 31(3), 183-193. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2012). Defining e-governance. e-Service Journal: A Journal of Electronic Services in the Public and Private Sectors, 8(2), 3-25. Beerkens, M. (2015). Agencification challenges in higher education quality assurance. In E. Reale & E. Primeri (eds.) The Transformation of University Institutional and Organizational Boundaries (pp. 41-61). Brill Sense.

This paper examines the extent to which the organizational cultures of higher education institutions have become corporatized. Neoliberalism suggests that higher education institutions can become more effective and efficient if they adopt the practices and values of the corporate sector. As corporate values become more prevalent in the organizational cultures of higher education institutions, long-standing academic values and commitments to serving the public good might be displaced. While previous research has documented a shift in higher education toward corporate values and managerial practices, not all organizational cultures have changed in the same way. In some cases, higher education institutions have been able to engage with the neoliberal policy environment, while still retaining an organizational culture that is committed to academic values and serving the public good. This paper presents a case study of two regional public universities in the United States. Findings suggest that the ability to maintain academic values and public good commitments in the organizational cultures of higher education institutions may be related to how university leaders draw upon institutional logics during periods of strategic change.

Lepori, B. (2016). Universities as hybrids: Applications of institutional logics theory to higher education. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 2) (pp. 245-264). Emerald Publishing. McClure, K., Barringer, S., & Brown, J. (2020). Privatization as the “new normal” in higher education: Synthesizing literature and reinvigorating research through a multi-level framework. In L. Perna (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 35) (pp. 589-666). Springer.

As noted in the Research Handbook on the Transformation of Higher Education (Leisyte, Dee, & van der Meulen, 2023), higher education transformation has been widely discussed and debated, but the resulting picture remains clouded by multiple, sometimes contradictory perspectives.

While transformation often has a positive connotation in everyday discourse, higher education transformations are also associated with ongoing struggles. Actors who seek to transform higher education encounter a variety of obstacles at system and institution levels (Kezar, 2018). Several barriers are related to the structural arrangements of higher education institutions. High levels of decentralization and structural differentiation can result in decoupling, where academic units in an institution operate with little coordination or communication among them (Bess & Dee, 2008). Furthermore, adherence to institutionalized norms and ritualized practices can result in universities that are highly path dependent (Krücken, 2003), a condition in which previous decisions and strategies lock an organization into a trajectory from which deviation is viewed as undesirable or impractical (Sydow, Schreyogg, & Koch, 2009). The organization becomes rigid and inflexible as a result. Moreover, some transformations of higher education have created new problems or failed to address long-standing challenges (Giroux, 2014).

Collectively, the presentations in this part of the symposium offer in-depth analyses of the socio-political, technological, and market forces that are transforming higher education, also resistance to transformation and their effects. The authors provide a multi-level perspective on higher education transformation by conceptualizing change at the field, system, and organizational levels drawing on a variety of theoretical perspectives.

Since the 1970s, around the globe, governments recognised the economic and social benefits of expanding student participation in higher education. A highly skilled workforce came to be identified as a key cornerstone of competitive advantage. And thus, the movement to expand higher education in first world countries began, moving from elite to mass systems typified by that of the United States. The transformational journey, over a number of decades, as explored in this chapter, focuses on key actors in influencing and shaping government policy, with a particular focus on England. Additionally, four key pivot points are identified: firstly, the post-war expansion of higher education: massification. Secondly, the determination of how governments’ increased expenditure on higher education could be justified, i.e., the need for public accountability (which led to the development of quality assurance systems around the globe). Thirdly, the move from base-line approaches to quality enhancement (i.e., added value). And, finally, from the early 2000s, governments placing a much greater spotlight on the purposes of higher education, leading to concerns for equality and equity issues. Meanwhile, technological advances, and the various reports they informed, led to broader access to trend analysis, providing data that highlight diversity and inclusivity issues. The chapter concludes with reference to the Covid-19 pandemic, representing an insufficiently explored additional pivot point in this narrative of post-war massification and quality enhancement.

Ehrenberg, R (2001) ‘American higher education in transition’, Journal of Economic Perspectives. 26(1), 193-196. Fry, H, Ketteridge, S and Marshall, S (2015) ed 4 Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Abington: RKP. European Commission (2005) Mobilising the Brainpower of Europe: Enabling Universities to Make their Full Contribution to the Lisbon Strategy. COM (2005)

In this paper, we consider why efforts to diversify the academy persistently fall short. To do so, we adapt Leong’s theory of identity capitalism and then apply it to an extensive review of research concerning women’s experiences within the academic labor structure. This review of literature illustrates how—despite their growing presence— women are commodified, undervalued, and kept on the margins of the academy. Following this analytic review of literature, we pair insights from organizational change literature with Leong’s work to sketch out what can be done to facilitate not only diversification, but transformation oriented towards inclusion and epistemic justice. This chapter provides a robust foundation for others interested in critically exploring and tackling racialized and gendered conditions within the global academic profession.

Dee, J. R., & Leišytė, L. (2016). Organizational learning in higher education institutions: Theories, frameworks, and a potential research agenda. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 275-348). Springer, Cham. Dengate, J., Peter, T., & Farenhorst, A. (2019). Gender and the faculty care gap: "The obvious go-to Person" for Canadian university students' personal problems. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 49(3), 104–114. Dongre, A.A., Singhal, K., & Das, U. (2020). Presence of Women in Economics Academia: Evidence from India. ArXiv: General Economics. Dutt, K. (2021). Addressing racism through ownership. Nature Geoscience, 14(2), 58-58. Edwards, K. T. & del Guadalupe Davidson, M. (2018). College curriculum at the crossroads. Routledge Publishers.

Resistance to organisational change on behalf of academics is part and parcel of the transformation of higher education. Scholars of organizational resistance have concentrated on the power differentials between employers and employees and have shown how workers resist in terms of appropriation of time, work, and product, where resistance is seen not only as stalling but also as contributing to organizational change (Ford et al., 2008). We aim to investigate how senior and early career academics respond to managerial demands. We show that academics respond both in silent as well as in more proactive ways to the new structures and procedures of evaluation imposed on them when it comes to their academic work. Finally, we observe that manipulation, largely used by senior academics, as a pro-active form of resistance, may bridge the dissonance between academic and managerial values and facilitate hybridity in academic identities.

Ford, F. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235 L. Leisyte, J. Dee, & B. van der Meulen (2023) (Eds.). Research handbook on the transformation of higher education. Edward Elgar.

This paper examines the origins of Soviet style university administration, and the reverberations of its practices in the global context of higher education. While the Soviet managerialism of the 20th century differs from its successor, 21st century neoliberal managerialism, features that are common to them, including corporate surveillance, ideological hegemony, and freedom suppression, find fertile ground in societies and universities that are prone to an authoritarian style of governance. In post-Soviet contexts, managerialism has unique cultural characteristics that combine colonial and anti-intellectual legacies, making it particularly appealing to corporate powers cultivating the norms of exploitative capitalism in academia. Critical inquiry into university transformations spearheaded by the Soviet characteristics of managerialism is sorely lacking. This paper calls for rethinking the cultural and political legacies of higher learning in a world challenged by undemocratic and revanchist forces.

Hanson, M., & Sokhey, S. W. (2021). Higher education as an authoritarian tool for regime survival: Evidence from Kazakhstan and around the world. Problems of Post-Communism, 68(3), 231-246. Hayden, M. and Thiep, L.Q. (2007). Institutional autonomy for higher education in Vietnam. Higher Education Research & Development 26 (1), 73-85. Heyneman, S. (1998). The transition from party/state to open democracy: The role of education. International Journal of Educational Development 18 (1), 21-40. Hladchenko, M., de Boer, H. and Westerheijden, D. (2016). Establishing research universities in Ukrainian Higher Education: The incomplete journey of a structural reform. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 38 (2): 111-125.