In most European countries, university governance models have undergone modernization, the hallmarks of which manifest in new (modernized) governing bodies (i.e., university boards and councils). These governing bodies hold power, both formal and informal, to influence institutional policy and are frequently seen as institutions encapsulating the changing role of universities. To address a paucity of research on the influence of these governing bodies, the current paper examines the views of university board members in four European countries (Finland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden). It reports and discusses the empirical findings of a large-scale online survey of university board members (N = 2455), focusing on their attitudes towards the new roles of universities amid growing societal, political and economic pressure to revisit their major functions and policy principles.

This study focuses on gender differences in the boards of higher education institutions (HEIs), challenging the notion of inherent differences between men and women in board governance. The article provides a gendered analysis of the perceptions of men and women board members about board governance in Finland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. Contrary to expectations of diverse perceptions, a survey across these countries’ higher education systems revealed that men and women on boards generally shared similar perspectives on board governance. Factors such as professional background, age, and country context proved more significant than gender. The study indicated nuanced differences between men and women board members, such as women exhibiting a more managerialist mindset and emphasizing sustainability. This research contributes to discussions about gender diversity in board governance, extending the exploration to the unique context of European HEIs. The findings provide insights of (gender) diversity and homogeneity of board members and discusses the possible reasons for the homogeneity. For decision-makers and practitioners these insights provide a starting point to shape gender diversity policies for HEIs.

The increasing dependence on knowledge as a driver of societal development during the twenty-first century has placed the governance of academia in a state of transformation. Increasing pressure for academia to direct the production, proliferation, and utilisation of academic knowledge towards the perceived needs and interests of government, industry and interests groups have manifested themselves in a diverse set of conditions for funding of education and research. For academics in general, and for early career researchers in particular, the result is an increasing dependence on external funding. In response, many universities have taken steps to introduce restrictions on form, content, and publication of research – as well as what types of employments are made available for researchers in the first place.

This study explores the relationship between employment security and reliance on external funding in Finland and Sweden – two countries that have recently adopted tenure-track models. The exploration is based on material from the APIKS survey regarding duration of employment contracts, exposure to expectations, and sources of funding. Based on this analysis, we discuss whether tenure can effectively provide a healthy degree of independence and academic freedom in a funding landscape characterised by a high degree of competition for research funding.

The results of the study provide insights into how the transformation of conditions for academic work interact with fundamental values of academia, and open avenues for further research into how academics deal with the pressures of modern career structures.

Purpose – This paper aims to explore how novice doctoral co-supervisors promote PhD students’ well-being. It provides a more nuanced understanding of how early-career academics engage with the relational and emotionally complex nature of co-supervision. Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative study draws on 25 in-depth interviews with novice co-supervisors at two research-intensive universities in Sweden. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis within a symbolic interactionist framework. Findings – The results reveal that novice co-supervisors promote PhD students’ well-being. Drawing on their social expertise, they contribute by reducing social isolation, structuring the supervisory process, fostering scholarly independence and creating opportunities for open dialogue about well-being. Practical implications – This study can serve as a basis for discussions about novice co-supervisory roles and their involvement in PhD student well-being. It also highlights that new supervisors may require support structures at multiple levels – clear policies, structured team induction, training, mentoring and, above all, a supportive supervisory culture. Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in its close look at the role of novice doctoral co-supervisors. Using a symbolic interactionist lens, it shows how everyday relational practices can become part of the structure of supervision. Its value lies in highlighting how novice co-supervisors help shift supervision towards a more supportive and caring culture.

The benefits of student–faculty interactions are substantial in fostering undergraduate students’ social and intellectual growth throughout their academic pathways. In particular, out-of-class interactions offer several opportunities for students to engage meaningfully with faculty members in the campus environment. This study employs a qualitative approach to investigate how students interact with faculty outside the classroom and how students interpret faculty’s accessibility for out-of-class interactions. It also seeks to understand the challenges faced by students during these encounters. The findings of this study indicate that students seek out faculty outside the classroom for several reasons, but most of all for grade-related issues. While some students experienced a positive perception of faculty behaviour during informal contacts, the issue of infrequent interactions was emphasized as one of the challenges. The study indicates a variety of situations causing hesitancy and preventing students from seeking help outside the classroom.

In this article, we study how meritocratic systems and gender equality concerns are negotiated across different organisational spaces in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Based on a case study of the organising of a tenure track system in a Swedish university, we suggest that the intersection of meritocratic processes and gender equality work can be analysed as a set of negotiated orders in these spaces. This fragmentation may imply problems for advancing gender equality agendas in relation to established notions of meritocracy but may also imply opportunities for change as existing organisational spaces can be reconstructed or new ones created. Our notions of fragmentation and negotiated orders thereby suggest that the current situation is both stable and legitimate and that re-negotiations need to involve reconstructions of the various spaces and not only interventions into them.

This study explores the role of network administrative organizations (NAOs) in science diplomacy (SD) by means of a qualitative case study approach. The case in point is a Swedish government initiative to coordinate the internationalization efforts of domestic funding agencies. We examine how the NAO IntSam balances between governmental directives and agency autonomy. Utilizing primary data from semi-structured interviews supplemented by internal documents and policy reports, the analysis delves into the challenges and potential of NAOs in harmonizing top-down directives with agency autonomy. The findings highlight IntSam’s role in facilitating collaboration and aligning domestic and international policy landscapes, while also revealing inherent tensions due to divergent governmental and agency priorities. This study contributes to understanding the complexities of coordinating cross-border Science, Technology, and Innovation efforts, offering insights into the nuances, potentials, and limitations of NAOs in the realm of SD.

With the rise of the knowledge society, international conflict has become increasingly concerned with information and intellectual property – highlighting the growing importance of knowledge as a tool to serve purposes ranging from maintaining colonial links or political ties to facilitating peace and promoting trade. For academia, this has placed issues of internationalization firmly in the spotlight of internal and external stakeholders.

Throughout this process, internationalization has been conceptualized differently across higher education institutions and contexts, with institutions integrating different international and intercultural dimensions into the purpose and functions of education. Internationalization ofcurriculum, research, and service continue to be some of the fundamental factors in higher education where best practices are adopted and contextualized into different educational systems for efficiency and increase in productivity. After several decades of implementation of varying internationalization practices and policies, there is no question that it has transformed higher education across different borders. A plethora of studies have examined how internationalization has built on local, national, and regional policies and practices to harness, complement, and harmonize local activities in institutions.

Recent developments have, however, upset the status quo and formed the basis of new directions for both the utilization of academia in international relations and the use of internationalization as a tool for academic development. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a shift in patterns of mobility and digitalization, whose long-term effects are still an open question, and geopolitical instability has brought concepts such as responsible internationalization into the forefront of political and academic discourse. Another recent development is the rise of neo-nationalism, driven by autocratic regimes with anti-immigrant policies and economic protectionism.

With the road ahead for the internationalization of academia being uncertain, it becomes even more important to understand where the road has led so far. To understand where we are going, we must know where we came from. The APIKS survey, which was carried out in 2018 before the massive upheavals of the pandemic and heightened international conflict came into full swing, provides the ideal material for this purpose. Therefore, this study uses data from the survey to examine how internationalization has contextualized higher education curricula, research, services, and professional development programs across different countries. The study employs a comparative research design to conduct single and cross-case analyses of how the concept of internationalization has been contextualized. Using descriptive and inferential statistics such as ANOVA and multiple regression, the study's results will provide insights into how internationalization is integrated across borders, contexts, and disciplines to help provide a holistic picture of the situation. The results will also help develop a conceptual framework for understanding the perceived strategies of integrating internationalization across different contexts and open further avenues to explore how these differences could help support effective, efficient integration of internationalization.

This paper aims to examine the views of university board members in five European countries (Hungary, Finland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden). It reports and discusses the empirical findings from the survey of university board/council members. Special attention is paid to the views and attitudes of council/board members toward the new role of universities amid growing societal, political and economic pressure to revisit its major functions and policy principles. To this aim, the study addresses two research questions: (1) What are the most important principles for board/council members regarding university institutional policy? and (2) Do external and internal members have different accounts of a university and its institutional policy?

The study fits into a broader discussion about the changing role of universities amid the rise of the knowledge society and economy. One of the most important proxies of the changing role of universities and simultaneously a driver for institutional changes is institutional governance. In most European countries the model of university governance has undergone modernization and the hallmarks of those changes are the new (modernized) governing bodies - university boards and councils. They have received formal and informal power to influence institutional policy and are frequently seen as bodies encapsulating the changing role of universities. With this in mind, it is both incredibly interesting and highly relevant to learn what members of these governing bodies see as binding principles for university policy because of their prominent role in building strategic agency.  

We utilize data from a survey undertaken between May and September of 2023 across the university boards of five European countries: Hungary, Finland, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden (N= 2455). The analysis is based on data derived from a seven-item question specifically related to the principles that shall be considered in the institutional policy. For testing the proposed hypotheses, we operationalize the dependent variables through 7 categories that reflect different following principles: national policy priorities, regional development agendas, UN sustainable goals, competitiveness and university rankings, maximization of external funding opportunities, employability of students, and freedom for lecturers and researchers to explore themes of their choice. The respondents were asked to individually rate each of those seven principles along a disagree-agree scale of a 5-point Likert type. The selected categories were brought up by authors as a result of prior reflexive discussions that shed light on the challenges of international comparative studies that enable comparison across varied country settings.

We found that, in the view of board/council members, the most important principles of university policy are ‘employability of students’ (81%) and ‘freedom for lecturers and researchers to explore themes of their choice’ (80,7%). This demonstrates that greater social accountability does not have to come at the cost of traditional academic values. Interestingly, the least important goal for a university is considered to be to align its policy with ‘national policy priorities’ (47%) (with an outlier of Hungary). As to the second research question, the analysis also suggests that external and internal members share (rather) similar accounts of the principles of university policy within given national contexts. However, the study also demonstrates and discusses remarkable differences between individual European countries under the study.

The survey had high response rates (around 30% except for Hungary), but it was performed in only five European countries. Thus, the empirical findings should be interpreted with caution when attempting to identify general European trends.

The political discussion about new (modernized) governing bodies in university governance is of vital importance, and the study provides clear and solid empirical evidence about board/council members’ actual perceptions about overseeing their institutions and their principles. 

The study draws on data from the very first international comparative studies on university board/council members. The existing body of knowledge about university boards/councils is primarily focused on structural and legal analysis and otherwise presents little empirical evidence. Our study is empirical by nature and discusses evidence collected from five European countries.  

Student participation in university classrooms plays a pivotal role in student learning and success in higher education. We conducted a qualitative study to comprehend how students navigate complex classroom environments. Our aim is to understand how students perceive class participation and interactions with teachers and how they interpret teaching practices vis-à-vis their participation. Data from 23 undergraduate students at one university in Mozambique were collected and analysed. The findings indicate nuanced views and experiences regarding student participation and interactions with faculty. Deterrents to classroom participation and interactions were identified. Contextual and cultural factors were paramount in revealing the types and qualities of interactions and classroom participation reported in this study. Furthermore, innovative teaching practices and faculty’s caring attitude and behaviour were linked to more active participation and positive feelings about learning.