Conference Agenda

Within the extension of accessibility of higher education concerning its transfer from massive to almost universal phase (Trow, 1973), the number of non-traditional students attending higher education is increasing (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). One of the results of this growing demographic diversity is the substantial amount of so-called first-generation college students whose parents had not achieved more than a high-school education (Pascarella et al., 2004). In the Czech Republic, first-generation students make up more than 50 % of all university students (Hündlová & Šmídová, 2020).

However, it is known from several studies that first-generation college students have a higher drop-out rate than their second-generation peers (Ishitani, 2006). As in several other countries, Czech tertiary education is experiencing a high rate of university student academic failure (OECD, 2023). According to Tinto (1975), the effective way how to reduce the number of students leaving university before its completion is their appropriate academic and social integration. Reportedly, first-generation students have some difficulties with that integration process (Soria et al., 2013). It has started to be considered the importance of structural and sociocultural factors that may influence student retention and success and shape experiences of the underrepresented groups of students coming from a broader range of family and school backgrounds (Naylor & Mifsud, 2020).

The findings of some researchers show that these students have limited financial, social and cultural resources, receive less parental support in decision making, and more often attend less prestigious institutions (Reay et al., 2005). Futhermore, they are less in contact with the faculty members, less willing to ask for help and rely more on themselves (Yee, 2016). They also earn lower grades, spend more time on paid work, and are less involved in extra-curricular activities (Pascarella et al., 2004). Generally, first-generation college students struggle more with fitting in to a new study environment and identifying with the role of a student due to the incompatibility of their family and institutional habitus (Reay et al., 2005).

Only a few studies highlight that first-generation students may also have a supportive family background (Gofen, 2009), could be motivated good learners and excel at elite universities (Reay et al., 2009), are encouraged to achieve their educational goals by strict work ethic (Lehmann, 2009a) and career potential of university (Lehmann, 2009b) or bring to the higher education their unique cultural knowledge and wealth (Jehangir, 2010) which is the aim of this research as well.

This paper provides an exploration of the meanings, factors, resources, actors, and identities entering and influencing the process of construction and development of student identity of university students whose parents do not have a university degree. It is focused on the process of transition which is accompanied by a change in one's identity and uncertainty in one's social and cultural world (Crafter & Maunder, 2012). Theoretically anchored in a postmodern approach, identity is perceived from the perspective of social constructivist psychology (Burr, 2015; Gergen, 2009).

Higher education institutions, as societal educational institutions, are always subject to processes of change: Educational questions and research questions are oriented towards current societal values, challenges, problems and expectations (Becker 2017). Changing societal demands also require responses and constant adaptation from higher education lecturers.

These find themselves between multiple roles and expectations: In many countries, they are not only lecturers, but also researchers and/or must fulfil additional tasks in administration, student examination, supervision of student theses, etc. (Billot 2010). Furthermore, within their role of lecturers, they need to respond to diverse expectations: On the one hand, they must convey fact knowledge to students, on the other hand, they are increasingly expected to promote competences for acting in a rapidly changing world (Öhman & Östman 2019). And especially when it comes to complex societal topics which contain controversial and normative questions, they sometimes need to choose their position between freedom of research and freedom of teaching and societal responsibility (Müller-Christ et al. 2018).

Sociological role theory offers a fruitful frame for understanding the diverse expectations university lecturers assume in their daily job life. Sociological role theory refers to socially pre-formed positions and culturally pre-formed patterns of behaviour and understands social structures as a connection between positions and roles. The socially pre-formed positions are referred to as positions, the behavioural patterns associated with them as roles. Ralph Linton is considered the founder of sociological role theory, which was expanded by Robert K. Merton and Ralf Dahrendorf. Dahrendorf refers to social roles as "bundles of expectations that attach to the behaviour of the bearers of positions in a given society." (Dahrendorf, 2006 [1958]: 37) A social position is related to several other social positions. The position of the teacher is related to the positions of the student, the parents, the colleague, the headmaster, etc. Consequently, a position holder has several role partners, each of whom directs certain bundles of behavioural expectations towards him or her and demands different role actions from him or her to a certain extent (Schulz-Schaeffer 2018: 388). If different reference groups address diverging expectations to an individual, this may cause role conflicts.

It is especially interesting to observe diverse roles and role conflicts of lecturers in the field of teaching sustainability topics. Such topics, as for example climate change, loss of biodiversity and increasing global disparities, often contain multiple actors and can therefore not be treated by just showing one perspective. The so-called “wicked problems” consist of complex entanglements and there are often no simple solutions. The solutions which are chosen strongly depend on the perspective and values of an individual and therefore are controverse in themselves (Miller et al. 2011).

Education for sustainable development (ESD) is a concept which aims at enabling present and future generations for tackling such “wicked problems” and acting responsibly in an intertwined world. The concept not only aims at conveying knowledge and skills, but also values and attitudes linked to sustainability topics (UNESCO 2020). According to policy makers on all political scales, ESD should be implemented at all levels of educational systems (e.g. UNESCO 2020). Higher education institutions are important leverage points for societal change, as the future decision makers and experts are trained there.

How do university lecturers understand their roles in teaching sustainability topics? Which challenges and other fields of tension do they face? These questions shall be discussed in the paper presentation. In a first step, the questions will be examined by a theoretical approach through sociological role theory. In a second step, the theoretical reflexions will be translated to a practical level with examples from a qualitative reconstructive study.

The study examines the academics’ perception and experiences of performative ethos in research universities in Finland and South Korea. It is in the process of analysing the interview data questioning academics’ practical matters (tasks and roles), governing mechanism (assessment and incentives), and value of academics and universities in the performative regime. Based on a doctoral dissertation planned to be written in a monograph, this paper will present a brief of the whole research and preliminary ideas of findings and discussion parts.

The study investigates how academics in Finnish and Korean research universities have experienced and perceived performance-based management (PBM) in the name of effectiveness, efficiency and competitiveness. It embraces academic life and challenges in performative ethos; academic autonomy, assessment, and incentives which are core techniques of PBM on academics; academics’ roles, views on students, and university roles in both countries. A total of 28 academics (researchers, lecturers, and professors in hard and soft sciences) in research universities of two countries participated in the semi-structured interviews.

The main research question is how the globally promoted ideas of PBM in universities get interpreted and translated into socio-culturally different (local) contexts. It is inquired through perceptions and experiences of academics in research-based universities in Finland and South Korea. Along with it, there are four sub-questions: 1) practice: similarities and differences of academics' tasks, working environment and challenges in performative ethos in two countries 2) governance: similarities and differences of impact and effect of PBM (assessment and incentives) on academics in two countries. 3) engagement: similarities and differences of responding to performative ethos in two countries 4) core value: similarities and differences of academics' views on themselves, students, and universities.

The fundamental purpose of the study is to propose the direction and implications for the further comparative education research of Finland and South Korea concerning the academics’ subjectification through their academic lives and work in the performative regime. In addition, to comprehend this global phenomenon, actively respond to the changes and rethink policy borrowing or education export issues, this comparative education study considering socio-cultural aspects can play a pivotal role.

According to Deem (2001), the ‘local dimension can make a difference to how universities respond to global forces because local conditions or a lack of overall national policies can affect the extent to which academic capitalism or entrepreneurialism develop’ (18). Thus, it can shed light on how neoliberal education tendency (policy) in HE, such as research funding scheme and salary system, can have similar effects on academics in contrasting cases despite the different degrees.

Performance-based management is the disciplinary technique (power) which is optimised for neoliberalism based on freedom and flexibility (Son, 2016, p. 9). PBM is in the same line as university marketisation: enhancing efficiency, effectiveness (productivity and responsiveness) and quality by shouldering more accountability and receiving rewards (economic or social incentive) (Brown, 2013). Performativity is pursuing the effective usage of resources by measuring and determining true value (Tolofari, 2005, p. 86), which sophistically permeates the mindset and behaviour of actors. Value, judgement, display, incentives and self-controlling for the performance secured the justification to actors through the discourse of efficiency found on competition and accountability (Ball, 2003; Gunter, 2012, p. 76). These are ‘disciplinary techniques for taking charge of the behaviour of individual day by day and in its fine detail is exactly contemporaneous with the age of freedom’ (Foucault, 2008, p. 67).