22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Institutional Culture in Non-governmental Higher Education from the Students’ Perspective
Zsuzsanna Demeter-Karászi, Gabriella Pusztai
University of Debrecen, Hungary
Presenting Author: Pusztai, Gabriella
In Central and Eastern Europe, higher education institutions are run, besides public institutions, by non-governmental organizations, such as religious organizations and foundations. International research shows that non-governmental higher education in the 21st century can exhibit much more distinctive features than in the past (Benne, 2001; James, 2006; Carpenter, 2014; Berger, 2021). This is mostly due to the uniformization of higher education as a result of the monkey policy caused by an international ranking fetishism (Hrubos, 2012). Consequently, it fails to meet the needs of various types of students in a highly pluralized society (Hrubos, 2012; Berger, 2021). As a result of all this, in the competition for students, the expression of institutional identity and culture can become more prominent in order to meet the expectations of specific student groups (Reynolds & Wallace, 2016; Hulme et al., 2016). Forced to respond, the non-governmental sector can either become uniform (Reynolds & Wallace, 2016; Hulme et al., 2016) or assume an individual profile (Sullivan, 2019; Rizzi, 2019; Mishra, 2020). One option is to choose to compete with institutions belonging to the public sector by assimilating into the sphere dominated by state, renouncing the distinctive features of its institutional culture, but, on the other hand, approaching students who are also attracted by public institutions. Another option is to slightly distance itself from the competitive arena of global higher education, and construct a special, for example denominational institutional culture, thereby attracting students who are seeking an environment with a distinctly denominational institutional culture. The need to respond brings about a diversity within the non-governmental sector, and although these institutions are represented globally, it serves fundamentally different functions in various geographical, regional-societal, and cultural segments (James, 2006). The diversity within the non-governmental sector can be grasped at several levels, it is most evident, however, in the institutional culture, as institutions utilize the channels of institutional culture to emphasize diversity and various functions.
The institutional culture characteristic of non-governmental organizations is perceived by some through dimensions such as institutional leadership, education, and academic research (Barton, 2019; Batugal & Tindowen, 2019), while others investigate it within the dimensions of student community and student life (Rizzi, 2019). Building on the results of institutional culture research, the current thesis focuses on the student dimensions of institutional culture. The first dimension of institutional culture perceived at the student level is recruitment as the message the institution conveys to prospective students is a significant manifestation of institutional culture, as well as the assumptions different groups of students have when choosing a specific institution (Bess & Dee, 2012), i.e. the self-selection performed on the basis of the anticipated institutional culture. The second dimension of the institutional culture perceived by students consists of learning characteristics as this reflects how students interpret the institutional goals. It includes the specifics of student performance patterns, student effort and academic progress (Hulme et al., 2016). The third dimension of institutional culture perceived from the student perspective involves relational integration within the institution, as well as trust, and satisfaction. Community life and experiences, along with inter- and intragenerational integration are fundamental aspects of institutional culture.
Analysing the international and national literature, the following question arises: inasmuch as, in response to the challenges, a distinct institutional culture is truly perceptible in denominational institutions, how attractive can the examined institutions be as alternatives to non-governmental sector higher education institutions in the globalized, pluralistic, post-Christian era (Sullivan, 2019). Additionally, considering the continuously narrowing pool of higher education applicants, which institutional culture might different groups of prospective students be most open to.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn our qualitative research we used the Dropout 2019 questionnaire designed by the Center for Higher Education Research and Development (CHERD-H) and its database, PERSIST 2019, which we refined and supplemented with private- sector institutions to create our own database, SRAPHE 2019 (Students in Religious Affiliated and Public Higher Education), N=922. The questionnaire focuses on 11 dimensions.
When creating the SRAPHE 2019 database, in the research focusing on each region under scrutiny a multi-stage sampling procedure was used. The first stage was devoted to the spatial delimitation of the regions under scrutiny, taking into account that the countries included in the study differ not only in terms of religiosity and denominational structure, but there are differences also within the countries. Central and Eastern European countries can basically be divided into two categories based on religiosity (Pusztai et al., 2016), thus we have selected two neighbouring countries, one from each category. Romania belongs to the group of strongly religious cultures, while Hungary belongs to the group characterized by a so-called cultural religiosity. Following the selection of the countries, in the second stage, we selected to neighbouring regions, one from each country, taking into account regions which traditionally have a non-state education sector in higher education, and thus the counties of Hajdú-Bihar and Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg in the Northern Great Plain region of Hungary and Bihor county in the Romanian Partium region were selected for the sample. Once the counties were selected, all non-state higher education institutions in the county were selected and public institutions were assigned to these, thus creating pairs of public and non-state higher education institutions. When selecting the pairs of institutions, we aimed for similarities in the area of enrolment and training profile. The sub-sample consisted of students from public and non-state higher education institutions in a border region of Hungary and Romania who were studying in the same fields of study in the two sectors.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur findings show that the study has revealed the distinct function and institutional culture of non-governmental higher education institutions. The impact of these institutions on students becomes apparent even in the anticipatory phase of student socialization, and it continues to manifest in various aspects of students' education and academic achievement.
The findings cannot be generalized as the social, cultural, and geographical context significantly influences the character of the institutional culture of non-governmental higher education. Indicators examined present a culture that is inclusive towards individuals from various social strata. However, students' self-selection of institutions is significantly influenced by the perception that these institutions predominantly embrace those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and that, besides education, they strive to provide the expected cultural environment that aligns with students’ worldview.
The results of this study provide a theoretical and practical basis for drawing the attention of decision-makers in non-governmental and public higher education to the fact that a unique institutional culture and distinct identity hold the potential to attract prospective students. By embracing a special affiliation in their formal and informal mission, non-governmental institutions have the opportunity to attract stakeholders within the shrinking student market and to create an institutional culture that can stand its ground in the competitive higher education landscape of the 21st century.
ReferencesBarton, A. (2019). Preparing for Leadership Turnover in Christian Higher Education: Best Practices in Succession Planning. Christian Higher Education, 18(1-2), 37–53.
Batugal, M. L. C., & Tindowen, D. J. C. (2019). Influence of Organizational Culture on Teachers' Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: The Case of Catholic Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(11), 2432–2443.
Benne, R. (2001). Quality with Soul. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdamns Publishing Company.
Berger, P., Grace, D., & Fokas, E. (2021). Religious America, Secular Europe. A Theme and Variations. Routledge.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding College and University Organization. Theories for Effective Policy Practice. Stylus Publishing.
Carpenter, J. (2014). Introduction: Christian Universities and the Global Expansion of Higher Education. In J. Carpenter, L. Perry & N. S. Lantinga (Eds.), Christian higher education: A global reconnaissance (pp. 8–19). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Hrubos, I. (Eds.) (2012). Elefánttoronyból világtorony. A felsőoktatási intézmények misszióinak bővülése, átalakulása. AULA Kiadó Kft.
Hulme, E. E., Groom, D. E., Jr., & Heltzel, J. M. (2016). “Reimagining Christian Higher Education”. Christian Higher Education, 15(1–2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2016.1107348
James, A. (2006). Faith and Secularisation in Religious Colleges and Universities. Routledge.
Reynolds, J., & Wallace, J. (2016). Envisioning the Future of Christian Higher Education: Leadership for Embracing, Engaging, and Executing in a Changing Landscape. Christian Higher Education, 15(1–2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2016.1107340
Mishra, S. (2020). Social networks, social capital, social support and academnic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on ’underrepresented’ students. Educational Research Review, 29.
Pusztai, G., & Farkas, Cs. (2016). Church-Related Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe Twenty Years after Political Transition. In A. Máté-Tóth & G. Rosta (Eds.), Focus on Religion in Central and Eastern Europe: A Regional View (pp. 129–157). De Gruyter Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110228120-005
Rizzi, M. (2019). “Defining Catholic Higher Education in Positive, Not Negative, Terms”. Journal of Catholic Education, 22(2), 1.
Sullivan, J. (2019). Catholic Universities as Counter-cultural to Universities PLC. International Studies in Catholic Education, 11(2), 190-203.
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Employees’ Perception and Experiences with Language Policies in a Multilingual Setting– Higher Education in Norway as an example
Karina Rose Mahan1, Nicole Busby1, Gessica De Angelis1, Julie Flikke1, Svenja Hammer1, Eliane Lorenz2
1Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway; 2Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany
Presenting Author: Hammer, Svenja
In recent years, many European countries have been struggling to balance their national language (L1) with English and the increased emphasis on of internationalization in higher education. Particularly the Nordic countries have questioned if the growing use of English in academia will lead to an attrition of Nordic languages, leaving Norwegian ‘undeveloped’ as an academic language (Brock-Utne, 2001). This has contributed to a growth in policy strengthening. Various institutions, such as the Language Council of Norway and an array of universities have recently created language policies that strengthen the Norwegian language.
However, neither the feasibility of these language policies nor their consequences for (international) employees has been investigated. The current study aims to fill this research gap by investigating employee attitudes toward a new language policy that was introduced in January 2023 at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). It was pitched under the slogan “Norwegian when you can, English when you must”, emphasizing the use and importance of Norwegian at NTNU (see NTNU, 2023).
To contribute knowledge on what stricter national language policies can mean in an international setting, we have conducted an online survey targeted at all employees at NTNU. The aim of this study was to map current attitudes toward the language policies at NTNU among all employees. We distinguish between those who speak Norwegian as, at least, one of their native languages versus those who have one or more other native languages (which we label “international” employees).
Our study was guided by the following research questions:
- What are employees’ perceptions and experiences toward the new language policy at NTNU?
- Do employees' perceptions and experiences differ depending on language background, i.e., Norwegian native speaker versus international background?
The goal of this study is to uncover tensions between policy and practice in multilingual settings. By exploring L1-dominant policies, we wish to lift various voices in this process and critically discuss how language policies can be achieved through ethical internationalization. This is relevant for all countries that struggle to balance L1 and English in international settings.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo elicit information on employee attitudes, we used a questionnaire that we distributed digitally. The questionnaire consisted of 56 items with open and closed questions. Questions were compiled based on background information (for instance, questions mapping the employees’ languages spoken and how long they have lived in Norway), to determine their awareness of current language policies at the institution (e.g., if they are aware of existing policies), and open questions to express their needs and opinions. The online questionnaire was distributed on the university’s intranet to all employees and students. It was available in English, Bokmål, and Nynorsk (the two official written variants of Norwegian). The study was approved by Sikt, the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. The participants were fully anonymized, and the data were stored on a secure server that only the researchers in the project had access to.
We received 705 responses from employees, which accounts for 9% of the total employee population (n = 8,051). Seventy percent of the respondents held a teaching/research position (e.g., Professor, PhD, Postdoc), and the latter 30% consisted of administration, maintenance, HR, IT, and technicians. Approximately 56% of the participants were born in Norway, and 43% outside of Norway. Fifty-five different native languages were reported by participants.
The data were analyzed quantitatively (descriptive statistics) in closed questions, and qualitatively (content analysis) in open questions. In the current study, 7 questions were used in the analysis pertaining to attitudes toward language policy. We first asked about awareness of language policy, then asked questions about how NTNU should practice language policy guidelines. For the quantitative analysis, we considered the responses toward seven statements relating to language policy which asked people to indicate agreement on a 5-point Likert scale. The responses of all three questionnaire versions were matched and analyzed descriptively via relying on absolute frequencies.
For the qualitative analysis, we investigated three open questions (what participants thought about the language policy, if there were anything they would change about the language policy, and if they had any additional comments). We received responses from 219 participants. The data were analyzed in MaxQDA through qualitative content analysis. The two raters created open codes, then merged these codes into larger themes and double-coded for reliability using the so-called “Gioia method” (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary findings suggest that the employees have varying awareness of the language policy guidelines, and varying ideologies of what a language policy should consist of.
76% of the employees with Norwegian as their L1 were aware of the existing guidelines, whereas only 52% international employees were.
The majority of participants agreed that employees should be responsible for learning Norwegian to a B2 level within 3 years of employment (80% agreed). However, However, only 23% of participants agreed that Norwegian should be the main language of instruction at the university.
Around a third of respondents wrote responses to the open questions that indicated that they were highly critical of the current language policies at the university, as well as how languages are practiced in the workplace. Many international employees reported feeling excluded. They expressed large dissatisfaction with the Norwegian courses provided, and the lack of time and support to reach level B2 proficiency. Twenty-seven percent pointed out that the L1 policies contradicted the university’s international profile.
The findings above suggest a large gap between Norwegian and non-Norwegian speakers in higher education. Using an L1-dominant language policy may lead to internationals feeling discriminated against. If L1-dominant policies are to be implemented, they need to be flexible to allow for practices that are appropriate in a given context, and sufficient time and resources for internationals to learn the majority language. This is particularly important since international employees take on a lot of the teaching tasks. We propose that these are relevant findings for all European countries and beyond with a high influx of internationalization in higher education. Furthermore, we do hope to stimulate a discussion around language policies and discrimination with other European higher education institutions and beyond.
ReferencesBrock-Utne, B. (2001). The growth of English for Academic Communication in the Nordic Countries. 2001, 47(3/4), 221-233.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology.
NTNU. (2023). Guidelines of Language Policy for NTNU. Retrieved 22.01 from https://www.ntnu.edu/strategy/language-guidelines
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper
Social Identity of Faculty Also Matters When Promoting Inclusive Practices in Higher Education, but Not So Much As Expected
Jose-Luis Alvarez-Castillo, Gemma Fernández-Caminero, Hugo González-González, Luis Espino-Diaz
University of Cordoba, Spain
Presenting Author: Alvarez-Castillo, Jose-Luis
Policies in several regions of the world have made considerable progress in recent years in the formulation of principles and guidelines for action aimed at institutionalizing diversity and inclusion in higher education. This is the case in Europe (European Commission, 2022; European Higher Education Area [EHEA], 2020). Real progress, however, is slow, and this pace may be due not only to institutional or, more generally, contextual variables, but also to individual characteristics that deserve some attention. Thus, for example, personal variables of teachers have been identified that predict their teaching practices with an inclusive approach. Such is the case with personality, ideological attitudes, and beliefs and attitudes about diversity (Álvarez-Castillo et al., 2023). Particularly, with regard to beliefs about diversity, it has been observed that plural approaches exist in university institutions, both in the analysis of leaders' discourses and policy documents (García-Cano et al., 2021; Hendin, 2023; White-Lewis, 2022) and in the beliefs of teaching and research staff (Márquez & Melero-Aguilar, 2022), but there is no evidence of a deep critical commitment (i.e., an approach that considers diversity in terms of unequal power relations and which directs measures to institutional transformation).
The lack of in-depth commitment to diversity does not mean that certain groups of leaders and teachers do not adopt this type of critical approach that links difference to inequality and involvement with change. This has been manifested, for example, in the heads and members, belonging to ethnic minorities, of the staff of services and diversity committees, both in North America (Griffin et al., 2019) and in the United Kingdom (Ahmet, 2021; Bhopal, 2023), or also in ethnic minority faculty from British (Bhopal, 2020; 2022) and North American universities (Bhopal, 2022). The identification in these qualitative studies of a transformative commitment in minority member groups raises the question of whether beliefs, attitudes and behaviors about diversity are linked to the social identity of professional actors. The present quantitative study was designed to clarify this doubt, with the aim of verifying whether the social identity of teaching staff works as a predictor for inclusion in university teaching.
In the case of having developed a social identity linked to vulnerable or disadvantaged groups, Tajfel's classic Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) would predict that university teachers are characterized by beliefs, attitudes and behaviors aimed at favoring their groups and, thus, increasing their self-esteem. From this approach, it is expected, therefore, that teachers who feel they belong to minority groups are more likely to develop beliefs, attitudes and teaching practices with an inclusive approach than teachers who have not internalized this type of social identity. This prediction is made in a normative context – that of higher education – that favors, at least from its policies, the preservation of diverse identities.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDESIGN. The study was cross-sectional, survey-based, and aimed at confirming the predictive relationships between social identity and diversity beliefs, attitudes and behaviours by means of linear regression.
SAMPLE. The sample consisted of 972 university lecturers from eight Spanish public university institutions who agreed to respond to a survey. The sample composition was relatively gender-balanced, with 47.7% of men and 51.4% of women, and a mean age of 46.56 (SD = 10.95). The average length of employment in the institution was 14.76 years (SD = 11.38).
INSTRUMENTS. The instruments and the data collection procedure were approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Córdoba. The battery of questions consisted of two sections: a) Socio-demographic information (sex, age, years of service) and social identity (checklist for self-identifying as a member of a minority group linked to ethnicity, migratory origin, sexual orientation, religion, disability, chronic illness, income, language); and b) Scale of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Practices of Attention to Diversity for University Teachers (Ramos-Santana et al., 2021), a 19-item questionnaire that measures five factors: (1) Institutional Diversity: attitudes of teachers about the value that their universities should attach to diversity, as well as the practices they would have to implement in this regard; (2) Research and Teaching Focused on Diversity: teaching practices addressing diversity in the areas of research, educational planning, and innovation; (3) Diversity Teaching and Learning Practices: methods, resources, and activities that teachers use to address diversity in the classroom context; (4) Teachers’ Perception of Institutional Commitment to Diversity: Teachers’ beliefs about the commitment of their institutions and leaders to diversity; and (5) Conception of Diversity: meaning attributed to the concept of diversity by teachers.
PROCEDURE. An invitation was sent to the teaching staff of the eight Spanish public universities in a mass e-mail that included a link to the survey designed with LimeSurvey. Before administering the self-report instruments, informed consent was obtained.
DATA ANALYSIS. Once the data were transferred to SPSS (v28), preparatory, descriptive and correlational analyses were performed on the variables. Subsequently, the hypothesis was tested by means of linear regression.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsRegression analysis showed a positive predictive effect of social identity on factor 2 (Research and Teaching Focused on Diversity) and a negative effect on factor 4 (Teachers' Perception of Institutional Commitment to Diversity). In other words, the identification with minority groups anticipated a greater involvement in research and teaching innovation projects on diversity and in the design of teaching objectives with a diversity dimension, as well as the attribution of a lower commitment to diversity to the university leaders. However, the slight size of the effects, as well as the absence of effects on the remaining three dependent factors (including teaching practice in the interactive classroom environment) raises doubts about the relevance of social identity in inclusive beliefs, attitudes and practices and, therefore, in the predictive power of Social Identity Theory in this kind of context (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In addition, gender and years of service acted as moderators. In particular, the effect of social identity on the factor of inclusive practices could only be verified in the case of women and in those with medium and medium-advanced seniority in their professional careers.
Various types of interpretations could be provided for the result of the low relevance of social identity in inclusion, such as the potential negative influence of the sense of belonging when ingroups are devalued or threatened, as predicted by theories of intergroup conflict and intergroup relations (see review in Spears, 2021). Thus, teachers could distance themselves from both the institution and their own groups, at least when they are not characterized by a strong social identity. Added to this potential psychosocial effect is the impact of some institutional dynamics, which do not create truly effective opportunities for inclusion (Bhopal, 2023; Griffin et al., 2019).
ReferencesAhmet, A. (2021). Stop the pain: Black and minority ethnic scholars on diversity policy obfuscation in universities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 40(2), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2020-0338
Álvarez-Castillo, J. L., Fernández-Caminero, G., Hernández-Lloret, C. M., González-González, H., y Espino-Díaz, L. (2023). Inclusive Practices among University Teaching Staff. Confirmation of a Model Based on Personal Predictors. European Journal of Higher Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2023.2276198
Bhopal, K. (2020). For whose benefit? Black and minority ethnic training programmes in higher education institutions in England, UK. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 500-515. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3589
Bhopal, K. (2022). Academics of colour in elite universities in the UK and the USA: The ‘unspoken system of exclusion’. Studies in Higher Education, 47(11), 2127-2137. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.2020746
Bhopal, K. (2023). ‘We can talk the talk, but we’re not allowed to walk the walk’: The role of equality and diversity staff in higher education institutions in England. Higher Education, 85, 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00835-7
European Commission (2022). Towards equity and inclusion in higher education in Europe. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/publications/towards-equity-and-inclusion-higher-education-europe
European Higher Education Area (2020). Rome Communiqué Annex II - Principles and guidelines to strengthen the social dimension of higher education in the EHEA. http://ehea.info/Upload/Rome_Ministerial_Communique_Annex_II.pdf
García-Cano, M., Jiménez-Millán, A., & Hinojosa-Pareja, E.F. (2021). We’re new to this. Diversity agendas in public Spanish universities according to their leaders. The Social Science Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03623319.2020.1859818
Griffin, K.A., Hart, J.L., Worthington, R.L., Belay, K., & Yeung, J.G. (2019). Race-related activism: How do higher education diversity professionals respond? The Review of Higher Education 43(2), 667-696. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0114
Hendin, A. (2023). Separate but equal? Diversity policy narratives in Israeli higher education. Higher Education Policy, 36, 826–846. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-022-00291-z
Márquez, C., & Melero-Aguilar, N. (2022). What are their thoughts about inclusion? Beliefs of faculty members about inclusive education. Higher Education, 83(4), 829–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00706-7
Ramos-Santana, G., Pérez-Carbonell, A., Chiva-Sanchis, I., & Moral-Mora, A., (2021). Validation of a scale of attention to diversity for university teachers. Educación XX1, 24(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.28518
Spears, R. (2021). Social influence and group identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-070620-111818
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Brooks/Cole.
White-Lewis, D.K. (2022). The role of administrative and academic leadership in advancing faculty diversity. Review of Higher Education, 45(3), 337-364. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.0.0178
|
