Conference Agenda

Higher education systems worldwide are facing a convergence of interrelated crises, including declining public trust, sustained financial pressures, rapid technological transformation—particularly associated with Industry 4.0 and artificial intelligence—and growing expectations from society and labour markets. In this context, the alignment of universities, industry, and sustainable development has evolved from a normative aspiration into a systemic necessity for preserving universities’ social legitimacy and ensuring the relevance of engineering education. The United Nations 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a shared global framework that explicitly links quality and equitable education (SDG 4), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), and climate action (SDG 13) through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Universities and industries are thus increasingly expected to operate not as isolated actors, but as interdependent partners contributing to sustainable socio-economic transformation.

Recent scholarship on the civic university and the notion of universities as anchor institutions has reinforced this expectation by positioning higher education institutions as key generators of public value, regional development, and long-term societal resilience (Goddard et al., 2016). This perspective challenges market-dominated interpretations of university–industry relations and instead frames universities as democratic public goods with ethical responsibilities that extend beyond economic competitiveness. Such a shift necessitates new forms of leadership, governance, and accountability capable of balancing economic relevance with social inclusion and environmental sustainability.

This reorientation is closely linked to the evolution of universities’ third mission, which extends beyond teaching and research to encompass the creation of economic, social, cultural, and environmental value (Molas-Gallart & Castro-Martínez, 2007; Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010). Parallel to this evolution, knowledge production has shifted from Mode 1, characterised by disciplinary boundaries and linear transfer, toward Mode 2 knowledge, which emphasises interdisciplinarity, contextual application, and stakeholder engagement (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2001). While Mode 2 has facilitated closer interaction between universities and industry, the expansion of the third mission has also generated tensions. Neoliberal and commercialisation-driven approaches risk narrowing universities’ social roles and reproducing inequality (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004; Marginson, 2024). In contrast, civic-oriented interpretations of the third mission emphasise co-creation of public value through collaboration with governments, industry, and local communities, positioning universities as central actors in addressing complex challenges such as climate change, social justice, and skills transitions (Watson et al., 2011; Trencher et al., 2014; Arbo & Benneworth, 2007).

Engineering education occupies a particularly strategic position within this landscape. Global reforms increasingly emphasise competency-based, interdisciplinary, and sustainability-oriented curricula (Crawley et al., 2014; UNESCO, 2021), yet enduring mismatches between educational provision and industry needs persist (Andrews & Higson, 2008). Leadership plays a decisive role in addressing these challenges. Transformational educational leadership has been shown to foster institutional change, innovation, and stakeholder engagement, particularly when combined with participatory and justice-oriented approaches (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Shields, 2010).

The purpose of this study is to develop a leadership-centred framework that explains how engineering education can be strategically aligned with industry and sustainable development goals. Drawing on the lived experiences of policymakers, planners, and industrial managers, and using thematic analysis, the study identifies governance, curriculum, and trust-related barriers to alignment and examines how transformational educational leadership can address these systemic gaps. By integrating leadership theory with innovation and sustainability frameworks, the study contributes a conceptually grounded model for rethinking the university–industry relationship in engineering education, with implications for policy, institutional governance, and curriculum design.

Descriptions of phenomena such as Big Data and so-called “algorithmic cultures” (Seyfert & Robert, 2017) indicate a shift in how knowledge is produced, as scientific understanding and social reality are increasingly shaped by data-driven models, and algorithmic decision-making processes. Computational procedures have thus become central to knowledge production, with methods from computational and data science established as growing range of disciplines (Neumann et al., 2022). High Performance Computing (HPC) plays a key role in this development, not merely as technical infrastructure but as socio-technical practice that enables complex calculations, large-scale simulations and data-intensive research (Raj et al., 2020; Barelli & Lodi, 2025; Bacchio, 2025).

As the relevance of HPC expands, so do the demands for HPC-related competencies. These competencies are not limited to technical skills but encompass methodological, organizational, and epistemic dimensions that enable effectively participation in data-driven research practices (Serik et al. 2021; Stevens et al., 2024). However, HPC competencies are rarely embedded in bachelor’s and master’s curricula, resulting in fragmented learning strategies, underutilized infrastructures, and unrealized learning potential (Neumann et al., 2022). Researchers are required to engage in self-directed and ongoing competence development (Schicke, 2014), often relying on tutorials, short-term workshops, or OER’s (Mullen et al., 2016). Given the complexity of HPC, such individualized approaches remain insufficient (Raj et al., 2020).

From an adult education perspective, these challenges point to the necessity of collective and socially embedded learning structures with integrated educational opportunities that are accessible to beginners, scalable for advanced users, and transferable across disciplines. In adult education, HPC education represents an underexplored domain where learning opportunities can be designed beyond formal curricula, shaping new disciplinary and research possibilities (Raj et al., 2020). For that, existing experiences from HPC educational programs in higher education indicate that project-based learning and active experimentation with small self-guided projects, low-threshold support for programming, and collaborative exchange foster self-directed competence acquisition yield better learning achievements (Barelli & Lodi, 2025; Raj et al., 2020) by enhancing agency in relation to the world (Holzkamp, 1995). This shifts the focus toward the question of how learners, experts and other stakeholders can be embedded into social structures that systematically enable the exchange of experiences, problem-solving strategies, and practical knowledge. Here, the concept of community, frequently invoked in the HPC education literature (Raj et al., 2020; Barelli & Lodi, 2025; Bacchio, 2025), opens central perspectives.

The hpc.bw (dtec.bw) project addresses this by establishing an HPC Competence Center to facilitate interdisciplinary access and support competence development across diverse user groups: from non-specialists to HPC experts (Neumann et al., 2022). Competence development in hpc.bw is conceptualized as a shared practice rather than an individual endeavour. Drawing on Communities of Practice theory (Wenger, 1998), learning formats enable continuous exchange among learners, experienced users, and experts, systematically sharing practical knowledge. Within the context of digital transformation and data-driven research, this contribution examines hpc.bw through this lens, presenting learning offers and support structures as a heuristic framework.

In the conference contribution, the concept of community will be examined as a central analytical category for understanding learning and competence development in the context of HPC education. The contribution aims to explore how the term community is mobilized, interpreted, and operationalized within the hpc.bw project and related HPC education discourses, and how it can be meaningfully framed from an adult education perspective, as it is widely used but conceptually ambiguous (Zeuner, 2020). Additionally, special attention is given to learning experiences and competence requirements of researchers from fields not traditionally associated with HPC, exploring how educational design can facilitate new research potentials and self–world relations (Koller, 2012) in a data-driven environment.

This paper aims to analyze the professional learning and development of adult educators involved in the recognition of prior learning in Portugal. Specifically, we intend to examine how these educators acquire the knowledge necessary to perform their professional activity.

Over the last few decades, adult education policy programs based on European Union guidelines promoting lifelong learning have emerged. These programs have created new opportunities for adult education and training, as well as for the educators who implement them (Barros, 2020). However, adult education policies in Portugal are characterized by their fragmented and intermittent nature (Cavaco, 2022), as well as the prevalence of programmed obscurantism among Portuguese elites and decision-makers, as mentioned by Melo (2004). This has resulted in a series of advances and setbacks in the educational field. Nevertheless, an educational offering called recognition of prior learning emerged in the early 2000s, along with the need for adult educators to implement it. Integrated into public policies on adult education, this educational practice began to be implemented in Portugal in 2000. Its purpose was to increase the qualifications of adults with a low level of schooling by valuing life experiences and knowledge acquired through informal and non-formal education (Cavaco, 2020).

In the European context, the legal status and qualifications of adult educators began appearing in official European Union documents in the early 2000s. Interest in this subject has grown, culminating in the European Commission's commissioning of two studies to map the situation of adult educators throughout Europe, including their education and competences (Research voor Beleid, 2008, 2010). Other proposals have emerged, such as the Curriculum globALE, a cross-cultural core curriculum for the training of adult educators. It is a modularized and competency-based framework curriculum that aims to promote knowledge exchange and mutual understanding among adult educators across countries and regions (Lichtenberg, 2020).

The specificity and complexity of the recognition of prior learning justify the importance of educating adult educators who implement this process in public adult education policies in Portugal. Adult educators working in recognition of prior learning in Portugal constitute a distinctive professional community whose learning and development patterns merit scholarly attention and policy support. Emerging as a new occupational category with Portugal's pioneering recognition of prior learning system, these educators face complex professional demands requiring integration of adult education facilitation skills, technical knowledge of competence standards and assessment procedures, interpersonal sensitivity to diverse learners, and commitment to equitable validation practices (Guimarães, 2023). These educators need multiple skills and knowledge to properly perform their professional duties (Egetenmeyer et al., 2019; Rohs & Bolten, 2017). Loureiro (2024) emphasizes the significance of workplace learning environments for adult education professionals. From this perspective, learning is not limited to formal education; rather, it is deeply embedded in daily professional activities. Through engagement with real problem-solving and reflective practice, professionals construct knowledge and competences. However, Ioannou (2024) notes a lack of systematic reflection structures, deliberate documentation of emerging practices, and mechanisms for generalizing knowledge across centers and practitioners.

Despite some achievements and progress having been made (Nuissl et al., 2024), adult educators still have a low professional status and work in precarious conditions that are often characterized by heterogeneous and atypical forms of employment (Werner & Martin, 2023). Some authors (e.g., Loureiro, 2024; Nuissl et al., 2024; Werner & Martin, 2023) argue that there is no general requirement for specialized academic education to work in adult education. Based on this reality, this paper seeks to answer the following question: How do adult educators involved in recognition of prior learning learn and build the knowledge necessary to perform their professional activity?

Research on professional learning and teacher judgment has traditionally emphasized how teachers decide when and how to intervene in classroom interaction. Across studies of adaptive teaching, formative assessment, and instructional responsiveness, professional competence is commonly associated with timely and visible intervention through explanation, correction, scaffolding, or direction. Within this tradition, the professional agency involved in judging when not to intervene has remained comparatively underexplored, and pedagogical restraint is often misinterpreted as passivity or laissez-faire teaching.

This study addresses this neglected dimension by examining how teachers intentionally withhold directive intervention while sustaining participation and collective inquiry within classroom ecology. Rather than treating non-intervention as an absence of action, the study conceptualizes intentional withholding as situated professional restraint oriented toward the ecological maintenance of participation. By shifting analytical attention from prescriptive instructional techniques toward the ongoing cultivation of professional judgment, the study contributes to contemporary discussions of teacher learning and classroom participation.

The analysis is grounded in Vision-Driven Sociocultural Design (VDSD), a theoretical framework that conceptualizes educational practice as an ongoing coordination guided by an evolving vision functioning as an ethical and sociocultural horizon for action. Within VDSD, vision is not understood as a fixed instructional script, but as a shared orientation toward what counts as meaningful participation and legitimate educational action within practice. In this study, VDSD is further extended by conceptualizing pedagogical vision as an ecological organizing force shaping the stabilization of participation over time.

VDSD emphasizes that classroom ecology is not merely an environment, but the ongoing stabilization of participation through routines, interactional norms, and shared expectations that gradually sediment into cultural resources for collective learning. Professional judgment is thus conceptualized as a continuous and often tacit process through which teachers maintain, recalibrate, and selectively reorganize these ecological conditions across time.

From this perspective, teaching is understood as the situated coordination of participation within evolving classroom ecology, where professional competence entails recognizing when restraint becomes educationally productive for sustaining collective inquiry and shared meaning-making.