Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2161006
Betül Yarar, Yasemin Karakaşoğlu
ABSTRACT As mentioned in official reports, the number of scholars migrating from countries with autocratic regimes or/and at war to neighborhoods or Europe is increasing due to continuing attacks on scientists and academic institutions in those countries. This paper studies this phenomenon through the analysis of the data collected through a research project involving interviews with 10 experts and 22 exiled scholars who fled their home countries to Germany after 2015. Within this context, the paper particularly focuses on the experiences of scholars, who were provided by academic humanitarian actors with scholarships/positions at universities or research institutes in Germany to continue their academic work in safety. The paper suggests defining the recently expanding supporting networks for at-risk scholars as ‘academic humanitarianism’, which refers to a domain of power and a regime of governing that emerged at the intersection of two social fields: higher education and humanitarianism. Analyzing their narratives on their academic experiences in Germany, the paper concludes that despite the target of academic humanitarian actors to integrate this superfluous population of academia into German higher education (GHE), the unintentional result is their ‘inclusive-exclusion’ due to conflicting social forces (re)producing epistemic and dispositional hierarchies that exist in German universities.
{"title":"Inclusive-Exclusion of exiled scholars into German academia through the ambivalent zone of ‘academic humanitarianism’","authors":"Betül Yarar, Yasemin Karakaşoğlu","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2161006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2161006","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As mentioned in official reports, the number of scholars migrating from countries with autocratic regimes or/and at war to neighborhoods or Europe is increasing due to continuing attacks on scientists and academic institutions in those countries. This paper studies this phenomenon through the analysis of the data collected through a research project involving interviews with 10 experts and 22 exiled scholars who fled their home countries to Germany after 2015. Within this context, the paper particularly focuses on the experiences of scholars, who were provided by academic humanitarian actors with scholarships/positions at universities or research institutes in Germany to continue their academic work in safety. The paper suggests defining the recently expanding supporting networks for at-risk scholars as ‘academic humanitarianism’, which refers to a domain of power and a regime of governing that emerged at the intersection of two social fields: higher education and humanitarianism. Analyzing their narratives on their academic experiences in Germany, the paper concludes that despite the target of academic humanitarian actors to integrate this superfluous population of academia into German higher education (GHE), the unintentional result is their ‘inclusive-exclusion’ due to conflicting social forces (re)producing epistemic and dispositional hierarchies that exist in German universities.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129986853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2023.2170526
E. Hazelkorn, W. Locke
One of the aims of this journal is to influence and challenge policymaking in higher education by publishing high quality original research and analysis which explores the implications of findings for the development and implementation of policy. This is challenging enough for an international, peer-reviewed academic journal, but especially so for one that encourages in-depth accounts which are significantly longer than the standard journal article. Discussions of impact often revolve around the format and mode of communication and the translation of academic discourse into more popular modes such as summaries, blogs, podcasts and opinion pieces that might be more likely to be picked up by policymakers than academic manuscripts. Valuable though this may be, a more profound and comprehensive approach would be to reconsider the interactions between academic research/ers and policymakers (broadly conceived to include institutional, sectoral, national and international actors) and how policy knowledge can be co-created through these. It may be productive to consider this issue through the prism of university engagement and knowledge exchange and the longer-term relationships and collaborations that academics and researchers can have with the policy community. In the past, universities have had a tendency to promote an ‘expert’model that prizes academic, and especially scientific, knowledge above other forms of understanding and learning, particularly those in professional disciplines, which are often devalued, and even dismissed by academia. Applied research which addresses problems and issues that face policymakers is too often not regarded as ‘real’ research. Despite calls to consider all talents (Boyer 1990; VSNU, NFU, KNAW 2019), ‘expert’ research continues to dominate the career and reward structure of universities, in particular, research funding, peerreviewed publications and patents. On the other hand, many policymakers are looking for an evidence-base for solutions to problems they and society face. They are often clamouring (silently) for help and some would welcome new and radical thinking, but ‘they are not super-interested in deep empirical explanations of why they are wrong’ (McMurtrie 2014). The ability to understand the policy challenges and the exigencies of making and implementing policy – combined with academic expertise – is a stronger basis for exercising influence and authority and expanding the ‘Overton window’ of political viability (Mackinac Centre 2019). These contrasting perspectives of ‘expert’ and ‘applied’ research can hamper constructive dialogue and collaboration between universities and communities, government, businesses and non-profit organisations (Firth and Nyland 2020). The elitist approach to knowledge has tended to be further distorted by the rhetoric and reality of marketisation and reputation-building into a transactional mode of knowledge exchange which regards knowledge as an asset to be transmitted, transl
本刊的目标之一是通过发表高质量的原创研究和分析来影响和挑战高等教育的政策制定，这些研究和分析探讨了研究结果对政策制定和实施的影响。这对于一个国际的、同行评议的学术期刊来说已经足够具有挑战性了，尤其是对于一个鼓励比标准期刊文章长得多的深度报道的期刊来说。关于影响力的讨论通常围绕着交流的格式和模式，以及将学术话语翻译成更受欢迎的模式，如摘要、博客、播客和观点文章，这些模式比学术手稿更有可能被政策制定者所接受。虽然这可能是有价值的，但更深刻和全面的方法将是重新考虑学术研究人员和政策制定者之间的相互作用(广义上包括机构、部门、国家和国际行动者)，以及如何通过这些共同创造政策知识。通过大学参与和知识交流以及学者和研究人员与政策界的长期关系和合作来考虑这个问题可能会有成效。在过去，大学倾向于提倡一种“专家”模式，这种模式重视学术知识，特别是科学知识，而不是其他形式的理解和学习，特别是专业学科的知识，而专业学科往往被贬低，甚至被学术界所忽视。解决决策者面临的问题和问题的应用研究往往不被视为“真正的”研究。尽管要求考虑所有人才(Boyer 1990;VSNU, NFU, KNAW, 2019)，“专家”研究继续主导着大学的职业和奖励结构，特别是在研究经费，同行评审出版物和专利方面。另一方面，许多政策制定者正在为解决他们和社会面临的问题寻找证据基础。他们经常(无声地)大声疾呼寻求帮助，有些人会欢迎新的激进思维，但“他们对为什么他们错了的深刻实证解释并不感兴趣”(McMurtrie 2014)。理解政策挑战以及制定和实施政策的紧迫性的能力-结合学术专业知识-是行使影响力和权威以及扩大政治可行性的“奥弗顿窗口”的更强大基础(Mackinac Centre 2019)。这些“专家”和“应用”研究的不同观点会阻碍大学与社区、政府、企业和非营利组织之间的建设性对话和合作(Firth and Nyland 2020)。精英主义的知识途径已经被市场化和声誉建设的修辞和现实进一步扭曲为一种知识交换的交易模式，这种模式将知识视为一种可以传播、翻译甚至商业化的资产。这也产生了对个别学术研究人员以特定方式与利益相关者接触的期望，以实现“影响”，并对他们施加压力，以产生有形的产出，以收入、声誉标志和许多大学认为“有价值”的其他成果的形式。在高等教育市场，知识的交流和参与-的“第三使命”
{"title":"Co-creating policy knowledge","authors":"E. Hazelkorn, W. Locke","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2023.2170526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2023.2170526","url":null,"abstract":"One of the aims of this journal is to influence and challenge policymaking in higher education by publishing high quality original research and analysis which explores the implications of findings for the development and implementation of policy. This is challenging enough for an international, peer-reviewed academic journal, but especially so for one that encourages in-depth accounts which are significantly longer than the standard journal article. Discussions of impact often revolve around the format and mode of communication and the translation of academic discourse into more popular modes such as summaries, blogs, podcasts and opinion pieces that might be more likely to be picked up by policymakers than academic manuscripts. Valuable though this may be, a more profound and comprehensive approach would be to reconsider the interactions between academic research/ers and policymakers (broadly conceived to include institutional, sectoral, national and international actors) and how policy knowledge can be co-created through these. It may be productive to consider this issue through the prism of university engagement and knowledge exchange and the longer-term relationships and collaborations that academics and researchers can have with the policy community. In the past, universities have had a tendency to promote an ‘expert’model that prizes academic, and especially scientific, knowledge above other forms of understanding and learning, particularly those in professional disciplines, which are often devalued, and even dismissed by academia. Applied research which addresses problems and issues that face policymakers is too often not regarded as ‘real’ research. Despite calls to consider all talents (Boyer 1990; VSNU, NFU, KNAW 2019), ‘expert’ research continues to dominate the career and reward structure of universities, in particular, research funding, peerreviewed publications and patents. On the other hand, many policymakers are looking for an evidence-base for solutions to problems they and society face. They are often clamouring (silently) for help and some would welcome new and radical thinking, but ‘they are not super-interested in deep empirical explanations of why they are wrong’ (McMurtrie 2014). The ability to understand the policy challenges and the exigencies of making and implementing policy – combined with academic expertise – is a stronger basis for exercising influence and authority and expanding the ‘Overton window’ of political viability (Mackinac Centre 2019). These contrasting perspectives of ‘expert’ and ‘applied’ research can hamper constructive dialogue and collaboration between universities and communities, government, businesses and non-profit organisations (Firth and Nyland 2020). The elitist approach to knowledge has tended to be further distorted by the rhetoric and reality of marketisation and reputation-building into a transactional mode of knowledge exchange which regards knowledge as an asset to be transmitted, transl","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117023762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-22DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2114531
Yuan Gao, Jin Liu
ABSTRACT In the past several decades, internationalisation, which is featured by people and ideas’ unparalleled transnational mobility, has become a key discourse in higher education. Despite the spectacular outcomes that higher education internationalisation has achieved, scholars have detected weaknesses and vulnerabilities in its current policy and practice, which the COVID-19 pandemic have intensified. Informed by Marginson’s global higher education field framework, this study provides a critical reflection on the field’s evolution and the prospects for its future directions from experts’ perspectives. In unstructured interviews, 20 leading international scholars confirmed the global field’s dynamism and openness, and identified certain tendencies in its evolution, including a diversified and flattening structure. The experts highlighted the urgent demand for policy innovation on university internationalisation at the regional, national, and institutional levels in response to the changing global field in the post-pandemic era. The experts also stressed the significance of internationalisation’s cultural dimension, through which higher education internationalisation can escape the trap of the capitalist logic and address its shortcomings to achieve sustainable prosperity.
{"title":"Innovating policies for university internationalisation in the changing post-pandemic global field","authors":"Yuan Gao, Jin Liu","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2114531","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2114531","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the past several decades, internationalisation, which is featured by people and ideas’ unparalleled transnational mobility, has become a key discourse in higher education. Despite the spectacular outcomes that higher education internationalisation has achieved, scholars have detected weaknesses and vulnerabilities in its current policy and practice, which the COVID-19 pandemic have intensified. Informed by Marginson’s global higher education field framework, this study provides a critical reflection on the field’s evolution and the prospects for its future directions from experts’ perspectives. In unstructured interviews, 20 leading international scholars confirmed the global field’s dynamism and openness, and identified certain tendencies in its evolution, including a diversified and flattening structure. The experts highlighted the urgent demand for policy innovation on university internationalisation at the regional, national, and institutional levels in response to the changing global field in the post-pandemic era. The experts also stressed the significance of internationalisation’s cultural dimension, through which higher education internationalisation can escape the trap of the capitalist logic and address its shortcomings to achieve sustainable prosperity.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129768695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-14DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2121311
Xi Hong, A. Calderon, H. Coates
ABSTRACT Sustainable development has become a momentous global concern since the end of the twentieth century. The 2015 adoption of the SDGs represents a significant challenge for higher education globally as it compels widescale consideration of how the sector will address the SDGs and contribute to the 2030 Agenda. Seven years after the adoption of the SDGs, therefore, it is important to investigate the extent of engagement and clarify opportunities for growth. This paper reports research into university engagement with and contributions to the SDGs, what has happened and been documented so far, and what plans university leaders have for future engagement. From the analysis of multi-source evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that contributions vary across and are fragmented within universities, not resourced or reported in systematic ways. It calls for a much broader research agenda in this area that focuses not just on specific substantive issues but looks broadly across a suite of countries, universities, evidence, and issues and articulates a comprehensive view on what has been achieved as well as areas for development.
{"title":"Universities and SDGs: evidence of engagement and contributions, and pathways for development","authors":"Xi Hong, A. Calderon, H. Coates","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2121311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2121311","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Sustainable development has become a momentous global concern since the end of the twentieth century. The 2015 adoption of the SDGs represents a significant challenge for higher education globally as it compels widescale consideration of how the sector will address the SDGs and contribute to the 2030 Agenda. Seven years after the adoption of the SDGs, therefore, it is important to investigate the extent of engagement and clarify opportunities for growth. This paper reports research into university engagement with and contributions to the SDGs, what has happened and been documented so far, and what plans university leaders have for future engagement. From the analysis of multi-source evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that contributions vary across and are fragmented within universities, not resourced or reported in systematic ways. It calls for a much broader research agenda in this area that focuses not just on specific substantive issues but looks broadly across a suite of countries, universities, evidence, and issues and articulates a comprehensive view on what has been achieved as well as areas for development.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122196558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-08DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2105255
M. Elken, Elisabeth Hovdhaugen, J. Wiers-Jenssen
ABSTRACT Student mobility in the Nordic countries has traditionally been characterized by cultural cooperation and egalitarian values. Yet, the region has not been isolated from international trends towards emphasizing excellence and competition in the global knowledge economy. Policy framing is here used as an analytical lens for analysing national policy documents on international student mobility over a 20-year period. The analysis finds that the Nordic countries have become increasingly different in how international student mobility is framed. In both Denmark and Finland, the economic frame has become prominent, yet containing somewhat different kinds of ambitions and concerns. In Sweden and Norway, the framing is still predominantly educational. The article challenges the assumptions of the Nordic countries as a cohesive region, and provides a critical exploration into how justifications for international student mobility include important national translations.
{"title":"Policy framing of international student mobility in the Nordic countries","authors":"M. Elken, Elisabeth Hovdhaugen, J. Wiers-Jenssen","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2105255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2105255","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Student mobility in the Nordic countries has traditionally been characterized by cultural cooperation and egalitarian values. Yet, the region has not been isolated from international trends towards emphasizing excellence and competition in the global knowledge economy. Policy framing is here used as an analytical lens for analysing national policy documents on international student mobility over a 20-year period. The analysis finds that the Nordic countries have become increasingly different in how international student mobility is framed. In both Denmark and Finland, the economic frame has become prominent, yet containing somewhat different kinds of ambitions and concerns. In Sweden and Norway, the framing is still predominantly educational. The article challenges the assumptions of the Nordic countries as a cohesive region, and provides a critical exploration into how justifications for international student mobility include important national translations.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132958288","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-19DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2101507
Edward Choi, P. Altbach, M. Allen
ABSTRACT The commitment of managerial families to educational endeavours has significant implications for society. This analysis provides a comparative perspective on the role and continuity of family-owned or – managed higher education institutions. Also discussed are the benefits (and challenges) linked to their special organisational character, shaped by on the one hand the distinctive managerial agency of a kinship group and, on the other hand, the norms rooted in academe. We present national overviews of three countries at different stages of higher education maturation, South Korea, Brazil, and Ethiopia. The comparative examples shed light on in particular the varied environmental factors that threaten or encourage the continuity of these organisations. A more optimistic outlook persists in the cases of Ethiopia and Brazil, which unlike Korea represent emerging economies where increased higher education capacity may be needed relative to the potential future growth in demand. We add to the country overviews a case study of a family-based institution to contextualise the normative understandings of managerial kinship behaviours and motivations. Comparative examples are also introduced to capture the nuanced characteristics of these institutions. This analysis concludes by discussing the sustainability of the family-based leadership model and the implications of national policy on their continuity.
{"title":"Family-owned or -managed higher education institutions: a key dimension in higher education?","authors":"Edward Choi, P. Altbach, M. Allen","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2101507","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2101507","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 The commitment of managerial families to educational endeavours has significant implications for society. This analysis provides a comparative perspective on the role and continuity of family-owned or – managed higher education institutions. Also discussed are the benefits (and challenges) linked to their special organisational character, shaped by on the one hand the distinctive managerial agency of a kinship group and, on the other hand, the norms rooted in academe. We present national overviews of three countries at different stages of higher education maturation, South Korea, Brazil, and Ethiopia. The comparative examples shed light on in particular the varied environmental factors that threaten or encourage the continuity of these organisations. A more optimistic outlook persists in the cases of Ethiopia and Brazil, which unlike Korea represent emerging economies where increased higher education capacity may be needed relative to the potential future growth in demand. We add to the country overviews a case study of a family-based institution to contextualise the normative understandings of managerial kinship behaviours and motivations. Comparative examples are also introduced to capture the nuanced characteristics of these institutions. This analysis concludes by discussing the sustainability of the family-based leadership model and the implications of national policy on their continuity.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133594545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2105256
Charles Mathies, B. Cantwell
ABSTRACT This paper examines the flow of intra-European Union (EU) students for doctoral (PhD) studies to identify reasons for differences in international student mobility and migration (ISM) among member states. Rather than conceptualising intra-EU PhD student ISM only through push–pull forces, we theorise the intra-EU PhD ISM is associated with relative levels of national resources or levels of capital. We investigate the intra-EU PhD ISM through dyadic country pairings allowing the use of Gravity models to estimate the effect of variables associated with stocks of capital ascribed to a country to the change in the number of PhD students. The findings of this study indicate while there is asymmetry among EU member states, investment in strengthening the higher education systems within individual EU countries can strengthen the overall cohesion and competitiveness of the EU in the global science competition. Thus, policy focused on enhancing developing national higher education systems can pay dividends throughout the EU.
{"title":"Intra-regional mobility of PhD students in the European Union: the outcomes of region-making policy?","authors":"Charles Mathies, B. Cantwell","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2105256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2105256","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the flow of intra-European Union (EU) students for doctoral (PhD) studies to identify reasons for differences in international student mobility and migration (ISM) among member states. Rather than conceptualising intra-EU PhD student ISM only through push–pull forces, we theorise the intra-EU PhD ISM is associated with relative levels of national resources or levels of capital. We investigate the intra-EU PhD ISM through dyadic country pairings allowing the use of Gravity models to estimate the effect of variables associated with stocks of capital ascribed to a country to the change in the number of PhD students. The findings of this study indicate while there is asymmetry among EU member states, investment in strengthening the higher education systems within individual EU countries can strengthen the overall cohesion and competitiveness of the EU in the global science competition. Thus, policy focused on enhancing developing national higher education systems can pay dividends throughout the EU.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114920110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2103883
E. Hazelkorn, W. Locke, H. Coates, Hans de Wit
The world is in a transition from a relatively stable political, economic and social period towards one in considerable turmoil with radical implications for higher education. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, rising nationalism, geopolitical tensions, inflation and economic instability, are just some of its main manifestations. With hindsight, there were already many hints of the direction of this transition, but its magnitude and speed seem to have taken the world and the higher education sector by surprise. We have already seen how the pandemic has disrupted higher education worldwide. We are now watching higher education challenged in its autonomy and academic freedom by nationalist-populist movements and governments in several parts of the world. Issues of national security, geopolitical conflicts and war are challenging academic collaboration and global science at a time when pursuance of the UN Sustainable Development Goals requires more partnerships and deeper transnational cooperation. These developments are occurring at a time when higher education – and tertiary education more broadly – already face questions about their role and purpose in the global era. Widening participation, and achieving greater equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) are key goals for higher education, but around the world access from primary to tertiary education is still restricted, particularly for the 84 million people currently displaced around the globe. The Russian invasion of Ukraine forces us to be clear and outspoken against any attacks or restrictions on human rights and democratic values as well as on academic freedom, and at the same time keep our channels of communication and collaboration as open as possible. The response of higher education to the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how the internationalization of higher education and research can help solve global challenges. In contrast, the invasion of Ukraine and growing geo-political tensions highlight the fragility of those links and the vulnerability of higher education and research. Global engagement over the last few decades has been a key priority of higher education. The global knowledge economy created more competition between universities, but it also stimulated cooperation and exchange of people and science, although primarily for the benefit of the global north. Current geopolitical tensions pose very serious challenges for this global engagement. While diffuse and complex, the implications for global engagement in higher education and research in these volatile times are likely to be severe. As Altbach and de Wit (2022) state, ‘The debate about academic engagement and academic values is not an easy one. The academic boycott against the apartheid regime in South Africa taught us that blanket boycotts are in no one’s interest’. One of the collateral results of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the loss of rationality in segments of the academic community in North America and Europe. In res
{"title":"Unprecedented challenges to higher education systems and academic collaboration","authors":"E. Hazelkorn, W. Locke, H. Coates, Hans de Wit","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2103883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2103883","url":null,"abstract":"The world is in a transition from a relatively stable political, economic and social period towards one in considerable turmoil with radical implications for higher education. Climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, rising nationalism, geopolitical tensions, inflation and economic instability, are just some of its main manifestations. With hindsight, there were already many hints of the direction of this transition, but its magnitude and speed seem to have taken the world and the higher education sector by surprise. We have already seen how the pandemic has disrupted higher education worldwide. We are now watching higher education challenged in its autonomy and academic freedom by nationalist-populist movements and governments in several parts of the world. Issues of national security, geopolitical conflicts and war are challenging academic collaboration and global science at a time when pursuance of the UN Sustainable Development Goals requires more partnerships and deeper transnational cooperation. These developments are occurring at a time when higher education – and tertiary education more broadly – already face questions about their role and purpose in the global era. Widening participation, and achieving greater equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) are key goals for higher education, but around the world access from primary to tertiary education is still restricted, particularly for the 84 million people currently displaced around the globe. The Russian invasion of Ukraine forces us to be clear and outspoken against any attacks or restrictions on human rights and democratic values as well as on academic freedom, and at the same time keep our channels of communication and collaboration as open as possible. The response of higher education to the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how the internationalization of higher education and research can help solve global challenges. In contrast, the invasion of Ukraine and growing geo-political tensions highlight the fragility of those links and the vulnerability of higher education and research. Global engagement over the last few decades has been a key priority of higher education. The global knowledge economy created more competition between universities, but it also stimulated cooperation and exchange of people and science, although primarily for the benefit of the global north. Current geopolitical tensions pose very serious challenges for this global engagement. While diffuse and complex, the implications for global engagement in higher education and research in these volatile times are likely to be severe. As Altbach and de Wit (2022) state, ‘The debate about academic engagement and academic values is not an easy one. The academic boycott against the apartheid regime in South Africa taught us that blanket boycotts are in no one’s interest’. One of the collateral results of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the loss of rationality in segments of the academic community in North America and Europe. In res","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125951261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2096106
Emma Sabzalieva, A. El Masri, Anumoni Joshi, M. Laufer, R. Trilokekar, Christina Haas
ABSTRACT The proposition that international students are not only sojourners but future immigrants has become well established in public policy. While education and immigration policy have become more intertwined, they continue to be analysed as separate spheres of influence. This paper compares Australia, Canada, and Germany, which between them host nearly 20% of all globally mobile students and where a nexus between international student and immigration policy has emerged. Using critical discourse analysis, a comparative case study design and based on a systematic literature review of over 300 studies published from 1990 to 2018, the findings revealed three ostensibly paradoxical discourses, which are discussed using the new term ‘discursive pairings’. First, international students are selected for success but remain vulnerable to policy shifts that may exclude them and cause them to ‘fail’. Second, international students are retained to fill economic shortages, but face difficulties being accepted on the labour market. Third, international students help build national reputation yet have been known to be exploited and subject to discrimination. The contradictions that emerge in the discourses bring into question the ‘ideal immigrant’ framing of international students, demonstrating that their role, acceptance, and ability to integrate into host countries is far from assured.
{"title":"Ideal immigrants in name only? Shifting constructions and divergent discourses on the international student-immigration policy nexus in Australia, Canada, and Germany","authors":"Emma Sabzalieva, A. El Masri, Anumoni Joshi, M. Laufer, R. Trilokekar, Christina Haas","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2096106","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2096106","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The proposition that international students are not only sojourners but future immigrants has become well established in public policy. While education and immigration policy have become more intertwined, they continue to be analysed as separate spheres of influence. This paper compares Australia, Canada, and Germany, which between them host nearly 20% of all globally mobile students and where a nexus between international student and immigration policy has emerged. Using critical discourse analysis, a comparative case study design and based on a systematic literature review of over 300 studies published from 1990 to 2018, the findings revealed three ostensibly paradoxical discourses, which are discussed using the new term ‘discursive pairings’. First, international students are selected for success but remain vulnerable to policy shifts that may exclude them and cause them to ‘fail’. Second, international students are retained to fill economic shortages, but face difficulties being accepted on the labour market. Third, international students help build national reputation yet have been known to be exploited and subject to discrimination. The contradictions that emerge in the discourses bring into question the ‘ideal immigrant’ framing of international students, demonstrating that their role, acceptance, and ability to integrate into host countries is far from assured.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127840040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/23322969.2022.2101506
Johannes Wetzinger
ABSTRACT The Republic of Moldova is located in a tense geopolitical environment between the European Union (EU) and the Russian Federation. As the EU and Russia have incorporated higher education in their foreign policy agendas, this article analyses (1) whether the higher education policies of the EU and Russia are in competition in Moldova and (2) how the Moldovan higher education system is positioned between these external actors. At the theoretical level, higher education policy is conceptualised as a part of the soft power portfolio of the EU and Russia. The article draws on policy documents, primary data on university partnerships, and secondary data on student mobility. It is indicated that higher education policy is viewed by the EU and Russia through a geopolitical prism and to bind Moldova closer into their own orbit, resulting in an element of competition. Simultaneously, the Bologna Process has created an element of regional convergence. As for Moldova’s positioning, a strong EU vector is identified, however, Russia continues to play a significant role – an orientation that is facilitated by domestic and international influences. Finally, a geopolitical divide in higher education is visible in the secessionist Transdniestria region, which almost exclusively relies on Russia.
{"title":"The geopolitics of higher education: the case of Moldova between the EU and Russia","authors":"Johannes Wetzinger","doi":"10.1080/23322969.2022.2101506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2022.2101506","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Republic of Moldova is located in a tense geopolitical environment between the European Union (EU) and the Russian Federation. As the EU and Russia have incorporated higher education in their foreign policy agendas, this article analyses (1) whether the higher education policies of the EU and Russia are in competition in Moldova and (2) how the Moldovan higher education system is positioned between these external actors. At the theoretical level, higher education policy is conceptualised as a part of the soft power portfolio of the EU and Russia. The article draws on policy documents, primary data on university partnerships, and secondary data on student mobility. It is indicated that higher education policy is viewed by the EU and Russia through a geopolitical prism and to bind Moldova closer into their own orbit, resulting in an element of competition. Simultaneously, the Bologna Process has created an element of regional convergence. As for Moldova’s positioning, a strong EU vector is identified, however, Russia continues to play a significant role – an orientation that is facilitated by domestic and international influences. Finally, a geopolitical divide in higher education is visible in the secessionist Transdniestria region, which almost exclusively relies on Russia.","PeriodicalId":212965,"journal":{"name":"Policy Reviews in Higher Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114892006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：