Robin Middlehurst

Governance Within the EHEA: Dynamic Trends, Common Challenges, and National Particularities

The governance of higher education at system and institutional level across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has been changing, notably in response to ‘higher education reform’ agendas at European, national and provincial levels over several decades (Haug and Kirstein, Trends 1: trends in learning structures in higher education. European University Association. http://www.eua.be/eua/en/publications.jspx, 1999). However, the pace of change differs across countries and the exact forms of ‘modernisation’ in governance arrangements have distinctive features in different parts of the region and in different institutions (Eurydice, Higher education governance in Europe: policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Education and Culture DG, Brussels, 2008; CHEPS, The extent and impact of higher education governance reform across Europe: final report to the Directorate-General for Education and Culture of the European Commission, EC, Brussels, 2009; Paradeise et al., Reform policies and change processes in Europe. In: Huisman J (ed) International Perspectives on the Governance of Higher Education: Alternative Frameworks for Coordination. Routledge, London, pp 88–106, 2009). While the general direction of travel in many countries is towards more autonomy for institutions with less direct state control, not all institutions relish the opportunity to exercise more autonomy or have the capacity to do so, and not all governments are willing to relinquish their levers of control as fully as they might. Indeed, under the rubric of ‘more autonomy but with accountability,’ different forms of control and steerage are emerging at system and institutional levels, both through government mechanisms and via new governance roles exercised by a wider range of interests. As the missions and diversity of higher education providers have expanded – and their contributions to national and regional economic and social development have become more central and significant – a wider range of ‘stakeholders’ has been brought into the governance domain. These include employers, industrialists, other professionals, entrepreneurs, students and alumni. Accountability as well as steerage of institutions has thus moved beyond governments and their agents to embrace these groups of stakeholders (Stensaker and Harvey (eds), Accountability in higher education: global perspectives on trust and power, London, Routledge, 2011). In addition, within institutions, expectations of accountability linked to the responsibilities of autonomy have had an impact on traditional forms of academic governance. New roles and structures have developed alongside shifts in authority between academic governance and managerial or corporate governance. Finally – and in parallel with government ‘de-regulation’ and ‘re-regulation’ – the higher education environment itself is becoming increasingly diverse, competitive, more market-driven and subject to the volatility of shifting global markets for higher education services. The overall context for governance in the EHEA therefore remains fluid, dynamic and also contested. In this paper, we offer an overview of developments in governance, beginning with conceptual and definitional issues and examining some of the drivers for changes in governance arrangements. We make comparisons with wider global patterns of governance and look briefly at some current developments and themes that are emerging; these are picked up in greater depth and detail in the accompanying chapters within the governance theme. In the last section, we look ahead to some of the challenges and issues arising for governments, agencies and higher education providers as they try to ensure that governance systems remain responsive, appropriate and effective for changing environmental conditions in Europe and in the wider world.

International activity or internationalisation strategy? Insights from an institutional pilot study in the UK

Set in a context of increasing competition and changing dimensions of internationalisation, the paper offers an analysis of one institution’s approach to changing its strategy and practice in the light of both the external context and the internal drivers to internationalise. The research methodology was based on OECD/IMHE’s Internationalisation Quality Review tool (1999). The findings provide insights into strategy development and internationalisation and how both are experienced by students and staff. While the detail is drawn from one UK institution, comparisons at a more general level are made with institutional approaches to internationalisation in other UK institutions.

Higher education research agendas for the coming decade: a UK perspective on the policy–research nexus

From the perspective of the UK, this paper addresses two main themes. It presents a higher education (HE) research agenda for the next decade linked to key policy challenges and reflects on the dynamics of the research–policy landscape. The paper begins by identifying four dimensions of the UK that will continue to be important as a focus for research and policy and goes on to identify seven policy challenges, posing these as questions for research at micro- and meta-levels of analysis. The paper illustrates relationships between HE research and policy development and discusses the range of actors now engaged in the policy–research landscape where a wide range of ‘evidence’ is drawn upon by policy-makers. The challenge facing researchers is to ensure that longer term and deeper issues are not neglected in the rush for funding and short-term policy impact. While successful researchers engage in policy networks, they also need to maintain a critical distance from policy; and policy-makers themselves must recognise that independent enquiry provides the best service for the development of both HE and wider society.

Shifting patterns of international higher education: ebb and flow or sea-change?

28 I n November 2012, the US Department of Education published its first-ever “fully articulated international strategy.” Its two strategic goals are to strengthen US education and advance the international priorities of the US through increasing the global competencies of students, learning from other countries, and engaging in education diplomacy (2012, p. 4). What has prompted the US to launch a new international strategy, and how does it compare with developments in other countries? What trends are we seeing in international higher education, and do they signal evolutionary or more radical changes ahead? The US’s strategy, as articulated in Succeeding Globally through International Education and Engagement, makes interesting reading for foreigners for what it indicates both about US policy and about directions in international higher education. Of course, the document articulates concerns about national security: Foreign-language skills and area expertise are named as essential for national defence and intelligence. Yet there is recognition, too, that civic and global awareness are required for understanding relations with other countries, as well as US history and politics—and a hint that sustainable prosperity could depend more on effective public engagement internationally than on large-scale defense spending. The document recognizes that the ability to communicate, appreciate, and work with diverse perspectives and viewpoints promotes civil discourse and a cohesive society in a nation of 50 million immigrants. These attributes and aims are familiar to other multicultural societies such as Australia, Malaysia, and the UK, but they are not necessarily part of a national strategy for international education. The US may be leading the way in seeking to integrate internationalization at home with internationalization abroad, across all stages of education and for all students, including those who have been traditionally disadvantaged. The imperatives of a hyper-connected world are a familiar driver for internationalization strategies in other countries and regions. The US is not unique in wishing to develop “a globally competent citizenry” capable of sustaining