Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
22 SES 06 B: Policies and Reforms in HE
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
22. Research in Higher Education
Paper The Paradox of Quantitative Expansion and Quality in Turkish Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Legislative Reforms Gaziantep University, Turkey (Türkiye) Presenting Author:In recent years, higher education (HE) has experienced its process of transformation on a global scale (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2021). Global trends such as digitalization, the emergence of the knowledge economy, and demographic mobility have forced higher education institutions (HEIs) to come out of their ivory towers (OECD, 2024). This process of change has made it imperative for HE governance to move away from traditional hierarchical structures. In recent reports by international organizations such as UNESCO (2022) and the OECD (2024), HE governance is no longer solely focused on the physical capacity-building process, but rather on the sustainability of the balance between autonomy and quality. The global phenomenon of massification has opened access to HE in various developing countries (Tight, 2019). At the same time, it has also created a quantity-quality paradox. Under this phenomenon, various international literatures have defined HE quality as a multidimensional construct with inputs, processes, and stakeholder expectations, which are contextual and historical in nature (Altbach, 1999; Filippakou, 2011). Yet, various countries have implemented different policies in this regard, as their visions and strategies differ (Marginson, 2016). In this global context, the Turkish HE system has experienced quantitative growth, especially since the year 2000, through the slogan of “one university per province” initiated in 2006. The number of HEIs has increased from 76 in 2005 to 208 today (The Council of Higher Education [CoHE], 2026). In addition, the growth in the number of enrolled students to approximately 6.9 million is undoubtedly a success story in terms of access. Nevertheless, this rapid growth of the HE system in Türkiye carries a number of quality risks, especially at the level of HE governance (Özer et al., 2011). For example, the growth of the number of staff has not kept pace with the growth of the number of enrolled students, creating a number of problems in terms of teaching and learning processes (Çelik, 2015). In addition, the tendency of the foundational HEIs to employ experienced academic staff from public HEIs rather than developing new talents is a worrying trend (Şimşek, 2022). In addition, the elimination of the oral exam requirement for the title of associate professor is a factor that contributes to the rising concerns regarding the ability of the HE system in Türkiye to ensure the protection of scientific standards. Furthermore, recent interventions in HE governance, such as the administrative division of well-established universities, are considered to jeopardize the continuity of identity and culture. The initiatives such as the “Research Universities” program, which aim to reach world-class standards, have struggled to deliver the level of success envisioned (Emil & Akşab, 2018). The aim of this study is to investigate structural and legal changes observed in Türkiye by analyzing how governance preferences influence academic outcomes through a literature review. The changes in Türkiye's system constitute an exemplary case for other emerging economies’ HE systems facing similar challenges due to rapid growth. While this analysis represents a particular case, it also provides a broader view of its limitations in terms of influencing a quality culture in HE. In this context, the research is focused on the following research question: “How do recent legislative changes and governance reforms in Türkiye impact the quality of HE with respect to academic human capital, institutional autonomy, and global competitiveness?”. In this way, the research has engaged in transcending the traditional balance between quantity and quality, as well as to defining the factors of a quality culture with respect to sustainable HE governance. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The current research adopts a qualitative method in order to interpret the structural changes and quality strategies that affect the HE system in Türkiye. The research is based on a systematic literature review and document analysis. In this process, the three-step approach developed by Karaçam (2013) has been followed: the determination of the criteria for selection, the review, the analysis of the data. Setting the selection criteria With the aforementioned research focus in mind, it is included in the research policy documents, such as strategy reports from the CoHE, four consecutive national development plans following the year 2006 massification wave (the 9th [2007–2013], 10th [2014–2018], 11th [2019–2023], and 12th [2024–2028]), external evaluation reports from the Turkish Higher Education Quality Council, as well as significant changes in HE legislation, such as changes in the associate professorship scheme or in the foreign language examination process itself. Of particular interest are initiatives such as the “Research University” or “Regional Development-Oriented Universities” project, as they seem to present an interesting opportunity for an insight into the balance of autonomy/oversight in the relationship between the central administrative body and the universities. Review process and analysis of policy papers The legal texts on HE governance have not been treated as purely technical documents. They have read as policy papers that also signal the degree of centralization within CoHE’s governance approach. In practice, it has been worked with a guiding question: How far have decision-making processes been recentralized, and how much space remains for institutional autonomy? To address this, it has been examined strategic plans and quality assurance guidelines. Then, it has been organized the materials around key themes. Data analysis and trustworthiness These documents have been analyzed using document analysis methods (Bowen, 2009), and coded on two major dimensions: “quantity-quality balance” and “central oversight-local autonomy” tensions. For purposes of triangulation, the reports, regulations, and studies have been coded by both the researcher and the field specialist. After this, a comparison of both structures has been carried out, and areas of convergence have been identified. Where there has been no agreement between the codes, such areas have been excluded. However, it is only the findings that have been arrived at by consensus that have been included in the final analysis. This has been a careful process to present how changes in governance in Turkish HE will affect global competitiveness and scientific standards. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The preliminary results obtained through analyzing policy documents and reviewing literature have shown that a specific trend exists. First, quality oversight is increasingly being included in policy documents. However, this usually translates to a higher degree of centralization and a lower possibility for universities to represent themselves. Even research universities are not exempt from being affected through central bureaucratic mechanisms. It is difficult to develop a specific institutional identity and an academic culture of their own. This trend seems to confirm that developing world-class university status is not possible through a stronger hierarchical system but through a more flexible management system that is backed by financial autonomy. Second, it seems to be addressing academic staffing needs by not strengthening human capital. For instance, recent policies have addressed academic needs through the removal of associate professorship oral examinations and increased reliance on alternative foreign language examinations. While these measures are preliminary evidence to suggest that these measures can undermine perceptions of academic merit, it has put Türkiye’s position in world knowledge production at risk. Moreover, many of the foundational universities seem to be more interested in recruiting experienced academic staff from public universities than investing in new talent. This has created a type of system-wide circulation of human resources, not really contributing to sustainable development. Finally, mass access seems to be morphing into a quality paradox. It is because student-to-faculty ratios are still uneven and, in many instances, simply too high. There has been a very strong emphasis in strategy documents on quality assurance. While quality assurance is strongly emphasized in policy discourse, its practice seems limited. The bigger picture, however, is that a world-class system cannot simply be defined in terms of numbers, such as the number of graduates and publications produced. It has to be about a quality culture. References Altbach, P. G. (1999). The logic of mass higher education. Tertiary Education & Management, 5(2), 107-124. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. CoHE (2026). Yükseköğretim istatistikleri. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/. Çelik, Z. (2015). Türkiye’de vakıf üniversitelerinin mevcut durumu ve geleceği. İLEM Politika Notu, 8, 2-11. Emil, S. ve Akşab, Ş. (2018). Türkiye yükseköğretiminde araştırma üniversitesini anlamak: Karşılaştırmalı analiz. In Uğurlu, C. T., Beycioğlu, K. Koşar, S., Kahraman H. and Köybaşı Şemin, F. (Eds.) Eğitim yönetimi araştırmaları (pp.1-11). Cumhuriyet University Publishing. Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2021). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship (2nd ed.). Routledge. Filippakou, O. (2011). The idea of quality in higher education: a conceptual approach. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.537068. Karaçam, Z. (2013). Sistematik derleme metodolojisi: Sistematik derleme hazırlamak için bir rehber. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 6(1), 26-33. Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University Publishing. OECD. (2024). Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19991487. Özer, M., Gür, B. S., & KüçüKCan, T. (2011). Kalite güvencesi: Türkiye yükseköğretimi için stratejik tercihler. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2, 59-65. Şimşek, H. (2022) (Ed.). Türkiye’de vakıf üniversiteleri. Genç bir sektörün anatomisi. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Tight, M. (2019). Mass higher education and massification. Higher Education Policy, 32(1), 93-108. UNESCO. (2022). Beyond limits: New ways to reinvent higher education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000389912. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper Serving Society: Universities and Their Third Mission Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania Presenting Author:In the contemporary knowledge-based society, the role of universities extends beyond the traditional functions of teaching and research, with increasing attention devoted to the university’s third mission. The third mission is commonly understood as the relationship between higher education and society that goes beyond the first (education) and second (research) missions of universities (Görason, Maharajh & Schmoch, 2009). Traditionally, it has been conceptualised as a set of functions distinct from teaching and research activities (Vorley & Nelles, 2008). These functions encompass a wide range of activities related to the generation, dissemination, application and exploitation of knowledge and other institutional capabilities beyond academic environments, involving external stakeholders and society more broadly (Secundo et al., 2017). Through the third mission, universities increasingly position themselves as key actors in economic, social and cultural development, transforming into engaged institutions that interact closely with industry and society at large (Vorley & Nelles, 2008). The third mission emphasises two interrelated objectives: participation and change (Del Gottardo, 2014). Participation refers to the capacity of universities to design and implement innovative strategies for knowledge dissemination and co-creation, involving communities as active partners rather than passive recipients. Change, in turn, reflects the responsibility of universities to actively promote social transformation through continuing education, lifelong learning and capacity-building initiatives (Del Gottardo & Rossiello, 2022). By pursuing these objectives, universities play a critical role in fostering inclusivity both within their institutional boundaries and in the wider societal context (Giuri et al., 2019). As scholars increasingly emphasise the importance of university engagement in regional well-being and development, a variety of conceptual frameworks have emerged, including the “civic university” (Goddard & Vallance, 2013), the “regionally engaged university” (Goddard & Vallance, 2011, in Taieb, 2024), as well as notions such as the “entrepreneurial university”, “technology transfer” (Trencher et al., 2014). Within this body of literature, the third mission is progressively conceptualised not as an auxiliary function alongside teaching and research, but as a relational and societal orientation embedded in the core identity of higher education institutions. Rather than focusing narrowly on economic valorisation, the literature highlights the social, cultural and intergenerational dimensions of university engagement, positioning universities as actors that actively contribute to social cohesion, inclusion and learning across the lifespan. Mark (2018) situates the third mission within the development of the Age-Friendly University movement, which reconceptualises universities as inclusive spaces that foster participation, learning and well-being among adults. From this perspective, the societal role of the university extends beyond serving external stakeholders to actively constructing “bridges between generations” and facilitating social connection and lifelong learning across age groups (Mark, 2018). The third mission thus becomes closely linked to widening participation and lifelong learning, challenging conventional assumptions regarding both the target populations of higher education and the temporal boundaries of learning. Engagement is framed not as a unidirectional service provided by universities, but as a reciprocal and co-creative relationship between higher education institutions and their communities. A similarly relational perspective is evident in the work of Netshandama and Nevhu (2021), who emphasise the importance of intergenerational learning spaces within higher education curricula. They critique traditional curricular structures for marginalising community-based and intergenerational forms of knowledge and argue that meaningful engagement requires a fundamental rethinking of how knowledge is produced, shared and valued. In this view, intergenerational learning is not an optional extension of academic practice, but a powerful educational approach for addressing social fragmentation, inequality and exclusion (Netshandama & Nevhu, 2021). Accordingly, the third mission is conceptualised as a mechanism for social connection and mutual learning, rather than as a one-directional transfer of expertise from universities to society. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A qualitative research methodology was employed for this study, using semi-structured interviews. Qualitative research seeks to reveal the entirety of the phenomenon under investigation within its natural context, therefore, the field of qualitative inquiry is often everyday life, encompassing diverse forms of activity and social interactions. The focus of the study is placed on participants’ perspectives, subjective understandings and experiences, and everyday contexts. (Gaižauskaitė & Valavičienė, 2016; Flick, 2014). Ten interviews were conducted with representatives of Lithuanian state universities. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analysed. In accordance with ethical principles, the research participants were coded to ensure anonymity. The codes were created using the abbreviation of the research participant–informant (LTU) and a sequential number reflecting the order of analysis (e.g., LTU-1, LTU-2, LTU-3, LTU-4). The transcribed texts were read and analysed multiple times. Data analysis followed the qualitative data analysis principles proposed by Dahlgren and Fallsberg (1991): • Familiarisation – the transcribed texts were read repeatedly by each researcher independently in order to gain an overall understanding of the collected data. • Compilation – the most significant elements of each participant’s responses were identified, focusing on similarities and differences across the selected excerpts. • Reduction – efforts were made to distil the core meaning of each response. • Grouping – similar responses describing the phenomenon were clustered into groups, and preliminary categories were identified. • Preliminary comparison of categories – the boundaries of the categories were defined and an assessment was made as to whether the preliminary categories accurately reflected the participants’ experiences. • Naming – based on their internal characteristics and defining features, the essence of each category was articulated and appropriate category names were assigned. • Contrastive comparison – by highlighting the distinctive features of each category, a final category structure was developed, grounded in the relationships and hierarchy among categories. Research ethics. The study was conducted in accordance with fundamental ethical principles. Participants’ safety and confidentiality were ensured throughout the research process. Interviews were recorded only with the informed consent of the participants. Each participant was provided with comprehensive information about the study, including its purpose, the researchers involved, the research procedures, the intended use of the research data, participants’ rights and their option to withdraw from the study at any time, the duration and course of the study, and an explanation of the ethical principles guiding the research. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis of the interview data reveals that universities primarily conceptualise their third mission through a broad educational mandate centred on the creation of knowledge and its return to society. Respondents emphasise both formalised knowledge transfer mechanisms and the provision of practical skills, highlighting the mobility of knowledge between academia and the public sphere. At the same time, the third mission is also articulated as a space for individual self-realisation, extending the educational function of universities towards personal and professional empowerment. The third mission is framed as a systemic layer of lifelong learning infrastructure that encompasses both internal institutional mechanisms and externally accessible learning formats. Lifelong Learning Centres emerge as a central structural element in this process, addressing the professional development of university staff alongside the educational needs of wider society. Strategic integration of the third mission is further reinforced through the use of explicit indicators and performance measures. In addition, universities highlight the expansion of open-access learning opportunities, including non-formal courses and programmes designed to reach learners beyond traditional higher education pathways. Overall, the findings indicate that respondents perceive the third mission as an activity that goes beyond the traditional functions of higher education—namely, teaching and research—and as one that is oriented towards broader societal impact. The third mission is understood as a responsibility to educate society in a comprehensive sense, promote social inclusion, and create opportunities for diverse social groups to participate in learning, cultural and social activities. Research participants consistently stress that the third mission is equal in importance to studies and research and is increasingly becoming a strategically significant dimension of university activity. References Dahlgren, L.-O., & Fallsberg, M. (1991). Phenomenography as a qualitative approach in social pharmacy research. Journal of Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 8(4), 150–15 Del Gottardo E. (2014). La terza missione come creazione di valore pubblico. Attività conto terzi: lavorare con le competenze non formali e informali. In: Formica C. a cura di, Terza Missione. Parametro di qualità del sistema universitario (pp. 109- 130), Napoli: Giapeto. Del Gottardo E., Rossiello C. M. (2022). Terza missione e innovazione sociale: lo spin-off universitario “Io faccio futuro”. In Pavone M. et al. (Eds.). Un ponte tra l’Università e mondo del lavoro per l’inclusione e la vita indipendente (pp. 220- 233). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, 1, 3-18. framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 123 (C), 229–239. Gaižauskaitė, I., & Valavičienė, N. (2016). Socialinių tyrimų metodai: kokybinis interviu: vadovėlis. Vilnius: registrų centras. Giuri, P., Munari, F., Scandura, A., Toschi, L. (2019). The strategic orientation of universities in knowledge transfer activities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 261-278. Goddard, J., Vallance, P., 2013. The University and the City. Routledge. Görason B., Maharajh R., Schmoch U. (2009). New activities of universities in transfer and extension: Multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36: 157. DOI: 10.3152/030234209X406863 Haj Taieb, S. (2024). Measuring the third mission of European Universities: A systematic literature review. Society and Economy, 46(2), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.030 Mark, R. (2018). Promoting age friendly universities which are sustainable and open to all: a new challenge for the academy?. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 20(2), 169-183. Netshandama, V.O. & Nevhu, N.D. (2021). Creating intergenerational learning spaces: A collaboration between UNIVEN Community Engagement Programme and Dzomo la Mupo. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning 9(2)DOI:10.14426/cristal.v9i2.462 Secundo, G., Elena Perez, S., Martinaitis, Ž., Leitner, K.H., (2017). An intellectual capital Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K.B., Doll, C.N.H., Kraines, S.B., (2014). Beyond the third mission: exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci. Public Policy 41 (2), 151–179. Vorley, T., Nelles, J., 2008. (Re)Conceptualising the academy: institutional development of and beyond the third mission. High. Educ. Manag. Policy 20 (3), 1–17. 22. Research in Higher Education
Paper The Evolution of Institutional Change, ICT Development Policies, and Global Influences: The Case of Higher Education in the Western Balkans Central European University, Austria Presenting Author:Proposal Overview: The Evolution of Institutional Change, ICT Development Policies, and Global Influences: The Case of Higher Education in the Western Balkans Background and Relevance Digital transformation in HEIs is more than technological adoption; it is an institutional process shaped by governance, organizational culture, and historical legacies. HEIs differ from other sectors due to their decentralized governance, tradition-bound academic norms, and overlapping mandates (education, research, services). These complexities are amplified in the Western Balkans, where despite EU-driven agendas and aid, HEIs struggle with low digital uptake, lack of institutional strategic planning, and path-dependent institutional inertia. Kosova and Albania serve as comparative cases in this study. While both countries share geographic and cultural traits, they diverge in state formation and educational legacies. This provides an opportunity to examine how historical development shapes institutional responses to digital innovation in higher education. The region’s challenges, resistance to change, limited infrastructure, and fragmented digital strategies, highlight the urgency for evidence-based insights to support policy and institutional reform. Core Research Questions What factors hinder institutional innovation in HEIs? How can institutions shift from resistance to change and move toward digital innovation? Paper 1: Institutional Path Dependency and Policy Gaps This paper investigates how past policies and institutional choices shape the current (in)capacity of HEIs to implement digital strategies. Through historical analysis, semi-structured interviews, and focus groups, the study examines whether governance structures and policy mandates have enabled or obstructed DT. Using theories of path dependency and sociological institutionalism, it identifies institutional legacies and self-reinforcing mechanisms that entrench resistance. Preliminary findings suggest that fragmented policy implementation and historical rigidity have limited innovation, despite available resources. Paper 2: Faculty Engagement and Policy Interventions (RCT) To test how change occurs at the micro level, the second study uses a 2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving university faculty. The intervention tests whether digital training and information about institutional digital policies as policy interventions) increase faculty uptake of LMS tools. The study measures behavioral change through LMS log data and surveys. The assumption is that combined interventions (training + policy awareness) significantly improve digital uptake compared to either alone. This paper reframes digital transformation as a policy design challenge, emphasizing the role of institutional signaling in shaping individual behavior. Paper 3: Benchmarking Innovation and Overcoming Resistance The final paper investigates how digitally mature HEIs overcome resistance and institutionalize innovation. Using a triangulated approach—case studies, secondary data analysis (e.g., EUA, OECD), and interview-based insights—it identifies governance models, leadership strategies, and enabling conditions (such as CIO roles, dedicated DT units, integration into QA systems) that distinguish digitally resilient institutions. The goal is to develop a benchmark framework tailored to HEIs operating in constrained policy environments. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The first paper focuses on the following question: How do formal and informal institutions condition digital adoption in HEIs? The first paper includes three components: (1) a historical analysis, (2) interviews, and (3) focus groups. The historical analysis includes a review of the institutional framework (see list in Section 4), policy documents, media reports. This review presents the evolution of digital policies. The retrieval of these records involves a systematic search through government portals, ministry web- sites, and national news archives, as well as the use of targeted keyword queries on digital media platforms. The institutional records access strategy involves university websites, internal archives, annual reports, and, where necessary, direct communication with relevant administrative offices. Semi-structured in-depth interviews include 10 to 20 policy and HEI stakeholders (i.e., HEI leadership/faculty/IT and 5 policy and decision-makers). The draft questionnaire for the interviews adopts the International Association ofUniversities Global Survey on Digital Transformation framework (IAO, 2023), which includes sections such as governance, teaching and learning, and support (draft questionnaire in Annex 3.2 of Prospectus submission is under review). Semi-structured interviews provide flexibility and structure, allowing for the control of the interview process and, at the same time, adapting the interview to the flow of the conversation. Focus groups include faculty members, students, and IT staff at the institutional level. There are 18 HEIs in Kosova, comprising seven public universities and 11 private colleges, with a total of approximately 85,000 students and 5,000 academic staff. While in Albania, there are 40 HEIs, comprising 14 public universities and 26 private institutions, with a total of 91,000 students. The extracted samples for the focus groups include: - 2 focus groups with faculty members - 1 focus groups in Kosova (4-6 participants per group). - 1 focus groups in Albania (4-6 participants per group). - 2 focus groups with students. - 1 focus group in Kosova (4-6 participants per group). - 1 focus group in Albania (4-6 participants per group). The focus groups aim to explore perceptions of the digital transformation of their HEI, identify perceived barriers to digital transformation and reasons why, and gain insights into potential incentives and motivators for digital transformation. Based on this, the paper presents a thematic analysis generated through MAXQDA or NVivo, which incorporates auto-coding/AI features, which also inform the design of the interventions (RCT) in Paper 2. The use of an RCT within organizational settings, especially in the WB context, is a novel methodological contribution. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Bringing together the literatures on innovation and institutional change provides a powerful lens for analyzing digital adoption in higher education. Theories of innovation stress the dynamic, cumulative, and systemic nature of technological change, while institutional theories emphasize the patterned, historically embedded, and legitimacy-seeking behaviors of organizations. Digital adoption, therefore, can be conceptualized as both an institutional process, where new technologies are legitimized, routinized, and aligned with existing norms, and an innovative process, where technological and organizational paradigms co-evolve. Nelson and Winter’s (2004) evolutionary theory of economic change bridges these perspectives by treating routines as organizational analogues of individual skills. Just as individual behavior is shaped by tacit knowledge and habitual patterns, organizational routines represent institutionalized capabilities that structure how institutions respond to technological opportunities. Routinization both enables stability and constrains radical innovation, implying that digital transformation depends on the balance between established institutional logics and adaptive capacity. Combining insights from new institutionalism and innovation theory allows for an exploration of how institutional legacies shape the capacity of higher education institutions to absorb, implement, and routinize digital innovations. This integrative framework situates micro-level behaviors (faculty digital uptake) within meso-level institutional processes (policy and implementation) and macro-level structures (national and global technological change References Burton-Jones, A. (2003). Knowledge Capitalism: The New Learning Economy. Policy Futures in Education, 1 (1), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.2304/ pfie.2003.1.1.4 Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088 DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields [Publisher: [American Sociological Association, Sage Publications, Inc.]]. American Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147–160. https: / / doi. org / 10. 2307/2095101 Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11 (3), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82) 90016-6 EIS, E. (2025). EIS interactive tool 2025 — Research and Innovation. Retrieved November 24, 2025, from https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec. europa.eu/en/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovationscoreboard/eis Freeman, C., & Lou¸c˜a, F. (2001, February). As Time Goes By: From the Industrial Revolutions to the Information Revolution [Google-Books-ID: sZgs6YBKbhUC]. OUP Oxford. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology, policy, and economic performance lessons from Japan. Meyer, J. W., & work(s): B. R. R. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83 (2), 340–363. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778293 Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2004). An evolutionary theory of economic change (digitally reprinted). The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press. Perez, C. (2015). From long waves to great surges: Continuing in the direction of Chris Freeman’s 1997 lecture on Schumpeter’s Business Cycles. (European Journal of Economic and Social Systems). Rhodes, R. A. W. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Oxford Univ. Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548460. 001.0001 Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3. ed). Free Press [u.a.] Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development – An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle. Regional Studies, 51 (4), 654–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1278975 Selznick, P. (1996). Institutionalism ”Old” and ”New” [Publisher: [Sage Publications, Inc., Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University]]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (2), 270–277. https: / / doi.org/10.2307/2393719 | ||