David M. Hoffman

Changing Academic Mobility Patterns and International Migration: What Will Academic Mobility Mean in the 21st Century?

Several scholars have underlined connections between academic mobility and international migration. This qualitative study explores a spectrum of academic mobility articulated by Teichler that empirically contributes to consideration of these connections. This analysis of e-mail excerpts from 20 migrant academics, living in seven countries, illuminates six distinct patterns of academic mobility and highlights key differences between regions of the world. Narrowly conceiving academic mobility in terms of traditional short-term internationalization finds many universities focused on and staffed for academic mobility between countries. Other regions have long been focused on academic mobility that occurs within countries. These patterns are a result of long-term migration. At the conceptual and practical levels, this study distinguishes between the timescales and contexts of academic mobility and the theoretical justification for doing this. The resulting analysis invites a reconsideration of assumptions about academic mobility dynamics and their implications.

The Bologna Process in Finland

The aim of this chapter is to analyse how the Bologna Process influences Finnish higher education by examining what changes are related to or caused by it. The study focuses first on the social field of national higher education policy-making, and second on the study of higher education institutions examined from the perspective of academic basic units. The study is based on critical analysis of national policy documents and on a qualitative case study conducted at the University of Jyvaskyla in the spring term of 2004. The qualitative case study was based on thematic focus group interviews. The themes of the interview can be found in the Appendix 1. In order to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena taking place in higher education the choice of academic departments was influenced by studies of academic cultures (see Becher and Trowler 2001). A more detailed methodological discussion will be offered in section 5. The idea of a

Internationalisation at Home From the Inside: Non-Native Faculty and Transformation

Demographic changes are inevitable in many regions of the world today. Changes in institutions are optional. Higher education is not an exception. Much literature and information exists on the notion of diversity as it applies to higher education and students. Far less can be found on faculty change, especially in countries without strong traditions of immigration. The changing character of faculty composition—in terms of diversity—may yield insights that have concrete implications for society at large. This article traces a practical intervention effort aimed at discrimination and international students, which ultimately led to a qualitative case study, featuring interviews of foreign-born academics working inside one of Europe’s most highly advanced—yet homogeneous—university systems. This perspective offers insight into the original problems that inspired this study and opened up a wider range of issues with implications for intercultural education policy in many countries.

Higher Education in Networked Knowledge Societies

This conceptual chapter articulates an analytical synthesis: Networked Knowledge Society. This synthesis incorporates the role of knowledge, information and communication technology (ICT) and networks in order to better understand the dynamic nature of contemporary societies. It also conceptualises the relationships between contemporary societies and higher education. A traditional approach to examining the relationships between higher education and society is to consider this from the societal point of departure to interpret or explain change in higher education. Our approach, by contrast, is relational with respect to the dynamic role of higher education in societies and the ways in which higher education both transforms – and is transformed by – changing societies. We propose to briefly concentrate more generally on the nature of contemporary social order. We then advance the analytical synthesis Networked Knowledge Society, which both integrates a view of knowledge, ICT, and networks as the most important social phenomena in contemporary societies and that also illuminates the key relationships necessary to better understand twenty-first century societies and higher education.

Diversity of Higher Education Institutions in Networked Knowledge Societies: A Comparative Examination

Within and across many expanded and diversified higher education systems, the recognition and understanding of differences between institutions becomes especially challenging. Forms of both ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ differentiation frequently exist alongside each other, though with increasing attention given to the former. Institutional boundaries become more porous within intra-sector and cross-sector collaborations, as networks become increasingly important in both. Do the ways in which different kinds of higher education institutions interact within networks, as well as the nature of those networks, differ? To what extent do network configurations become platforms for distinct knowledge trajectories to develop? It is possible to detect trends of both convergence and differentiation in these developments within and across higher education systems, reflecting global, national, regional and local influences? In order to capture these trends empirically, the CINHEKS research team developed and applied a form of comparative grid analysis with which to construct profiles of 28 higher education institutions drawn from five countries: Finland, Germany, Portugal, the UK and the USA. Based largely on public information from institutional websites, profile grids were constructed to capture institutional characteristics in terms of context/mission, knowledge organisation, knowledge production, knowledge transmission and knowledge transfer. Within each grid, institutions were compared in respect of dimensions such as local/global, teaching/research, disciplinary/inter-disciplinary, considerable or little networking, inter-sectoral/cross-sectoral orientation, intellectual/entrepreneurial rationales, collaborative/individual approaches etc. The profiles revealed most institutions to be explicitly active in partnerships and networks. Most were active in both intra-sector and cross-sector partnerships. Patterns of difference and convergence emerged though, with the five national systems differentially located across the grids. Two key dimensions reflecting the differences were those of ‘domain’ – intra-sector or cross sector networking – and ‘mission’ – knowledge as a ‘private’ or a ‘public’ good.

‘World Class Local Heroes’: Emerging Competitive Horizons and Transnational Academic Capitalism in Finnish Higher Education – 2010–2012

This chapter introduces an analysis based on institutional profiles of higher education institutions and the two institutional case studies that were carried out in Finland as part of the CINHEKS study. The purposeful selection of the profiles and case studies was based on historical contextualization, the spectrum of higher education institutions in Finland, as well as the twin effects of a major legislative reform, carried out as the global economic crisis of 2008/09 unfolded. In terms of theory of the middle range, empirical focus was achieved via a purposeful selection based on mission emphasis, disciplinary cultures, career stage and competitive horizons. This analysis spotlights three key facets of the Finnish case particularly relevant to the CINHEKS comparative study. Specifically, the Finnish higher education systems’ incorporation into neoliberal transnational academic capitalism, characterized by tensions between established tradition, at a national competitive horizon and emergent competitive horizons linked to the global division of scholarly labor. Secondly, the way in which this division of labor manifests is illustrated by a contrast on two extreme cases within Finnish higher education, featuring regional (and HEI) survival in one case, and a pragmatic foray into the global-facing world of HEIs vying for globally significant profiles, reputation and outcomes. Thirdly, we focus on the resulting misrecognition of enduring features that characterize the Finnish system, as a whole, across the extremes in our case studies, as well as paradoxical change and flux that presently characterizes this system. From the outside-looking-in, Finland’s society and education system are internationally – and often uncritically – valorized, on a regular basis. However, from the inside-looking-around, many higher education actors are of the opinion that higher education is not changing quickly enough, while others remain firmly convinced higher education is changing far too quickly. Our discussion centers on the uncertainty as to the viability of the signature features that are often cited as the basis for the quality of life in one of the last remaining strong Nordic social democracies and the role higher education system has to play. In addition, building directly on the cross-case analysis of CINHEKS higher education profiles, this analysis introduces the conceptual problematization universtasis which integrates power, domain and mission in a way that allows both empirically grounded explanation-building and policy analysis concerning the relationships between social reproduction and transformation in higher education within and between networked knowledge societies.

Main Findings and Discussion

This chapter ‘connects the dots’ between the outcomes of the CINHEKS study and relates these to contemporary higher education research practice and policy. This conclusion summarizes our main theoretical and conceptual findings, central empirical results and methodological advances in a way that illuminates the key issues and questions brought into view by the CINHEKS study, as a whole. Our findings are critically contextualized in terms of general challenges in higher education studies, which borrow far more than we generate, especially in terms of theory, conceptual problematization, methodology and methods. Theoretically, the analytical synthesis of network knowledge society is highlighted, as is our coining of the term universtasis, a conceptual problematization resulting from the cross-case analysis of fieldwork carried out by all CINHEKS project teams. The competitive horizons heuristic is spotlighted, as CINHEKS was the first time it was used in an international comparative higher education study. The chapter secondly focuses on the most important empirical findings of the CINHEKS study, focusing on findings regarding the role of place, higher education traditions, academic fields and the way in which comparative framing reveals the way these obscure – in distinct ways – the tensions between policy discourse, actual scholarly practice and societal outcomes. The cross-case analysis of the CINHEKS mixed-methods sequential studies; moving through descriptive, interpretive and explanatory levels of analysis reveals the limitations associated with much of the normative framing used every day by researchers and policy makers alike. In addition, interdisciplinary inquiry focused on comparative policy analysis, novel historical framing, shifting competitive horizons and the use of social network analysis sheds new light on both established and emergent forms of stratification within academe – and societies – in a manner that defies much of the oversimplification and guess work that passes for local and national-level ‘explanations’. Comparative framing spotlights that much publically available information profiled by higher education may obscure more than it reveals across distinct methodological nationalism(s), particularly regarding changing values. Methodological advances are also featured, as they were integral to the outcomes of this study. These include our team’s focus on process and the relationship between challenges, opportunities and research team dynamics and how these resulted in the development of the HEI profile, the incorporation of social network analysis in a comparative study, along with key lessons learned, regarding research design and execution. We conclude the chapter with some of the key questions and issues we believe now come into view because of the overarching finding of the CINHEKS study. These questions and issues are important for policy makers, researchers and higher education’s most important stakeholders.

The CINHEKS research design: taking stock and moving forward

Comparative research design, at its best, in an international project focused on a complex topic, is a dynamic, iterative and on-going process. In the CINHEKS study this proved to be the case, both by design and in several ways our team did not, nor could not, anticipate. The tensions between purposeful planning, inevitable setbacks and serendipity turned out to be one of the most interesting aspects of CINHEKS and the purpose of this chapter is to take a step back, well outside methodological convention, to holistically and critically reflect on the lessons learned during the planning and execution of the CINHEKS comparative study. This chapter is an analysis of our efforts regarding the complexities of the evolution of an international research project from its genesis to its conclusion. The authors, both members of the primary grant-writing team focus on research design and the relationship between successes beyond our wildest expectations and serious challenges we did not always fully appreciate or anticipate: And the ways in which the two ends of this spectrum are inextricably bound together.

Introduction to the Book and the Comparative Study

Chapter 1 of Re-Becoming Universities contextualizes and describes the contents of the book based on the study: Change in Networks, Higher Education and Knowledge Societies (CINHEKS). The CINHEKS study was a six country international comparative study focused on the way in which contemporary higher education institutions and networked within and between networked knowledge societies. The countries in focus are Finland, Germany, Portugal, The Russian Federation, The United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Volatile Markets and Reluctant Entrepreneurs

Winston (1999) asks how well experience with the microeconomic theory of firms and commercial markets helps in understanding the economics of higher education. “That experience and those insights will be used by trustees, politicians, administrators, lawyers, reporters and the public, as well as by economists, to understand and evaluate the behavior of colleges and universities” (Winston, 1999, p. 13). What is interesting is who is not mentioned: faculty and students. This is because Winston’s purpose is to problematize the economic analogies of student and customer, as well as faculty markets and labor markets. Winton’s purpose is now very relevant in Finland. As of 1 January 2010, the Finnish government established the legal and administrative framework for the higher education system to pursue a market-driven model. However, as Clotflelter (1999, p. 3) points out, several aspects of higher education “remain incompletely understood and therefore interesting for their own sake.” These include saying something sensible about the costs of education, university competition, the institution of tenure, the institutional hierarchy and the relationship between higher education and society (Clotflelter, 1999). This chapter links these kinds of issues, with a critical examination of internationalization and Finnish higher education, particularly in terms of the mobility of university personnel.