HIGHER EDUCATION QUARTERLY最新文献

Drawing upon the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI), this study explored the construction of the role identity of department heads within higher education, with a specific emphasis on their perceptions of themselves as leaders and/or managers. Three section heads, each holding a doctoral degree in educational leadership from different Arab countries, were tracked throughout their inaugural year of appointment, examining the evolution of their role identities and the factors contributing to them. Data sources included reflective journals and two rounds of interviews per participant, with qualitative analysis employed to trace shifts and advancements in participants' ontological beliefs, objectives, self-perceptions and actionable potentials related to their roles. Findings unveiled notable transformations in all four dimensions of the DSMRI among the participants, with two individuals transitioning from predominantly leadership to managerial roles, whereas the third participant retained a reinforced identity as a leader. This evolution is discussed in relation to concepts of administrative burden, power and authority, emulation of senior leadership and reactivity versus proactivity.

This article proposes (re-)thinking-feeling the current Western-centric metrics-driven measurement of ‘quality’ in learning and teaching in higher education. We argue that ensuring ‘quality’ in learning and teaching is an undeniable imperative, as it not only cultivates possibilities for students to think critically and engage imaginatively in an ever-shifting global environment. The challenge is not only the measurement but the confusion between what is measured and what is experienced and the neoliberal marketisation regime of higher education (HE) that has transformed institutional priorities, connecting ‘quality’ and the performance metrics that underpin it. Conversations with five academics who participated in this study within the UK context, reveal a consensus that applying a standardised, ‘one-size-fits-all’ measurement of ‘quality’ in learning and teaching in higher education is fraught with difficulties. Each discipline must embrace tailored, contextually appropriate, and discipline-specific approaches to conceptualising and evaluating ‘quality’. We argue that Ubuntu ethico-onto-epistemological philosophy and praxis, decoloniality and posthumanism can help us think about ‘quality’ differently, enabling ways to resist colonial paradigms and neoliberal logic and their impact.

Maurya, J., N. Swaroop, P. Sadar, and D. Misra. 2025. “Higher Education and Disability: A Systematic Literature Review and Agenda for Research.” Higher Education Quarterly 79, no. 1: e70001.

The number of articles mentioned in the abstract is incorrect. It was published as:

Based on multistep methodology that included preliminary search, database selection and keyword-based article retrieval, we conducted a descriptive thematic analysis of 204 research articles on disability in higher education.

This should have been:

Based on multistep methodology that included preliminary search, database selection and keyword-based article retrieval, we conducted a descriptive thematic analysis of 227 research articles on disability in higher education.

We apologise for this error.

The paper examines how external stakeholders conceptualise university social responsibility (USR) and their perceptions about how universities implement USR in practice. A total of 18 external stakeholders from eight universities were interviewed. The results indicated that there was no shared and common conceptualization of USR and that USR was recurrently related to the areas of teaching, research, or community engagement, revealing an omission of management, governance, and campus life. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on USR by shedding light on the perspective of actors that are not sufficiently addressed in the literature, that is, those of external stakeholders. We argue for a revisited USR based on a reflective debate on the potential role of external stakeholders in helping higher education institutions address societal needs. The study informs practical applications that policymakers can use to advance their social impact and reduce the gap between USR policy and practice.

Blockchain (BC) technology is widely believed to be the next disruptive technology that can address challenges in higher education institutions (HEIs) and support resilient strategies. This study aims to contribute to the literature and inform policymakers about BC's capability and potential in HE by examining enablers, barriers and contextual factors influencing BC adoption in HEIs. Through qualitative research, including interviews with 20 BC experts, we identified 12 factors affecting BC adoption. Key enablers include immutability, scalability, usability, management commitment, collaboration and standardisation, while barriers encompass government regulations, bureaucracy, governance and language. Additionally, privacy and cost emerged as factors that could act as both enablers and barriers. Our findings highlight the critical role of the institutional environment, revealing five new enablers and barriers to BC adoption in HE. We offer several strategies for facilitating BC technology adoption, taking into account the environmental, institutional and technological in-depth insights gained from this research.

Knowledge exchange in higher education is an emerging area delivered in multiple ways, including university–business collaboration, combining academic knowledge and business needs. Knowledge exchange can act as a vehicle for embedding sustainability in the curriculum and help address significant challenges we face as a society. Student knowledge exchange is driven by students who work on real-world projects, often with businesses involved. There is a need to assess the impact of knowledge exchange on students to inform curriculum design and development for a better student experience and outcomes. This research aimed to better understand the impact of university–business collaboration on student knowledge exchange for sustainability by adopting project-based learning pedagogy. The study draws lessons from the School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment and Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent University. The study found that project-based learning significantly impacts students' sustainability knowledge and competencies. Besides knowledge and competencies, students who work with businesses also gain sustainability skills, attitudes, and behaviours. The design and implementation of project-based learning affect the outcomes, including activities integrated into the curriculum versus extracurricular activities, bespoke versus ad hoc student projects and the duration of students' exposure to sustainability-related topics. This study contributes to higher education teaching and learning and impacts students' capacity building, affective domain and career readiness. Project-based learning can enhance student knowledge exchange for sustainability, particularly when collaborating with businesses, impacting students and businesses.

This paper explores the impact of student participation in staff recruitment processes at a UK distance learning Higher Education Institution, examining its contribution to quality in teaching and learning. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory, the study investigates how students’ involvement in high-level decision-making affects their sense of agency, wellbeing, and belonging. Using creative, arts-based methods, three distance students reflected on their experiences through visual representations and follow-up narrative interviews. Findings indicate that authentic student voice activities can enhance students’ perceptions of educational quality, promote a sense of inclusion, and support emotional and academic wellbeing. Participants reported increased confidence, respect for the institution, and clarity of purpose in their studies. This research highlights the value of embedding student voice across institutional practices and proposes a more holistic, participatory approach to quality that reflects the realities of distance education and the diverse identities of students.

In-depth interviews exploring academics' teaching practices and views on undergraduate education at one English university reveal concerning examples of educational trade-offs in delivering on national and institutional quality expectations. Evidence reveals the negative impacts on teaching and students' learning and achievements. Quality instruments reflect their neoliberal managerialist environment, its internal structures of power, organisation and monitoring and are viewed through Foucault's concept of governmentality. Academics' responses align with a post-Foucauldian construct reflecting their negotiating behaviours in this space. A new conceptual model extends on Docherty's construct of ‘contained’ play to capture ways in which institutional quality systems and structures might restrict learning. The questions, ‘what lies hidden from the gaze of traditional quality measures?’ and ‘where does the real risk to quality lie?’ are asked, revealing quality to be illusory in some instances. Findings reinforce the critical need to better understand teaching academics' experiences as key mediators in this area.

In common with many other higher tariff universities in the United Kingdom, Durham University uses contextual data about the socio-economic circumstances of applicants to inform decisions about whom to admit to its undergraduate degree programmes. This paper draws on data for undergraduates who entered Durham University in the period 2018–2020 (N = 11,392) to assess the extent to which contextual offer making has been successful in widening participation and to examine how contextually admitted students (around a fifth of all entrants) have fared academically at the university in both relative and absolute terms. Analysis of this data shows that contextual offers have helped to increase the socio-economic diversity of the undergraduate population at the university with respect to POLAR quintile and other postcode-based measures of disadvantage, but not with respect to school type. Importantly, without the availability of contextual offers, a significant minority of contextually admitted students may not have received an initial offer of a place, and around half may not have had their offer confirmed after key stage 5 examination results were announced. Relative to standard offer entrants, contextually admitted students had slightly lower pass rates and slightly lower average marks in years 1, 2 and 3 of their degree programmes, and were substantially less likely to graduate with a first and slightly less likely to graduate with at least a 2:i. In absolute terms, however, contextually admitted students performed well at the university, with pass rates of 90% or more and average marks of 60 or higher across all 3 years of study, and rates of leaving with at least an upper second-class degree of more than 80%. Overall, contextual offer making at Durham University has been a success, helping to widen participation without compromising student success in absolute terms. Improvements to student support systems are needed, however, to help close the gap in relative rates of success at degree level.