Conference Agenda

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.