From the Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies.

Facilitated by the freedom of movement within the European Union (EU), the Erasmus programme established in 1987, and the Bologna Process initiated in 1999, physical intra-European student mobility has become a taken-for-granted aspect of higher education. Student mobility—whether for a short-term stay or the completion of an entire degree—is the core phenomenon of higher education internationalisation. The latter has gained significant importance on the policy agenda of countries worldwide over the past decades in light of short- and long-term economic goals (e.g., generating tuition fees, recruiting skilled migrants), the strengthening of international cooperation, and an increase of academic quality and students’ intercultural competencies. Internationalisation strategies now exist on national and institutional levels (Crăciun, 2019); outlining goals and measures involving various stakeholders including education ministries, foreign ministries, national higher education agencies such as the DAAD, British Council, or Campus France; university administrations, and interest groups.

An age of disruption
Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic greatly disrupted established practices and regulations of higher education internationalisation. After the Brexit referendum, there was uncertainty about whether the United Kingdom (UK) would continue to participate in the Erasmus programme and whether EU students would still have visa-free, discounted access to British degree programs. With the COVID-19 pandemic, global student mobility largely came to a halt for the first time in history. There was speculation about whether Brexit and the COVID-19 crisis would mark a turning point in higher education internationalisation. Regarding Brexit, some predicted, for instance, that British-European higher education relations would never be the same as before the referendum. Concerning COVID-19, there was speculation that the pandemic might usher in an era where physical mobility would no longer be the core focus of internationalisation, but rather transnational online degree programs.

However, when we look at the literature on institutional change and stability (e.g., Mahoney, 2000, Ebbinghaus, 2005), we find that societal institutions such as the church, nation states or higher education systems are relatively resistant to change—even in the face of major disruptive events. This is because of path dependencies, which exist, for instance, due to powerful actors preventing change in order to stay in power or because new policies and practices are not considered ‘normal’ by society.   

Examining the disruptions’ impact in three major European higher education systems
The uncertainty about the status quo of European student mobility, combined with the diverging expectations of contemporary witnesses and the institutionalist literature, is the setting of my dissertation monograph Higher Education in an Age of Disruption. Comparing European Internationalisation Policies. In my book, I explore how Brexit and COVID-19 impacted student mobility policy and practices in England, France, and Germany between the years of 2016 and 2021. The three selected countries are not only among the top destinations for degree-seeking international and Erasmus students, but also represent different types of higher education systems. England is comparably market-based, while France is more state-dominated, and Germany traditionally follows the Humboldtian tradition of being state-financed while featuring a relatively strong academic self-governance. These differences allow for pertinent insights into how different higher education systems dealt with the disruptions.

Analytical approach of the study
The study involved 44 interviews with internationalisation experts from the three country contexts. These experts included heads of international offices of medium-sized to large universities and staff members from national education ministries and higher education internationalisation agencies (British Council, Campus France, DAAD). In addition, 234 documents were analysed, providing insights into events, debates, and changes related to Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic in the higher education sectors of England, Germany, and France. These documents included newspaper articles, parliamentary records, law changes, policy briefs, and statements from higher education stakeholders.

To assess whether and what kind of change occurred in higher education internationalisation, I developed indicators of the institutional dimensions of student mobility. According to Scott (2008), every institution consists of a regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive dimension. 

In the regulative dimension of student mobility, country-specific immigration and university admission laws must be followed, as well as the statutes of mobility programmes (e.g., Erasmus). The normative dimension is reflected in the values and norms that internationalisation actors refer to in their daily practice. Of particular interest here is whether student mobility is pursued primarily for academic, political, economic, or cultural reasons (Knight, 2012). Furthermore, specific norms and activities in the higher education system are institutionalized through funding programs (e.g., by the EU or internationalisation agencies). The cultural-cognitive dimension includes fundamental perceptions and approaches that actors consider self-evident. Such taken-for-granted aspects include whether higher education is viewed as a fundamentally public or private good and, relatedly, whether a higher education system is predominantly market-based or state-led. These assumptions, in turn, influence whether higher education internationalisation is primarily conceived within a collaborative or competitive logic.

I coded both the expert interviews and documents according to the institutional dimensions and developed an analytical framework involving different types of overall institutional change. I classified no substantive change in all three institutional dimensions as overall institutional stability, change in one or two dimensions as partial change and change in all three dimensions as radical change. 

Key findings
In all country-disruption combinations, I found partial change. That is, the regulative and/or the normative dimension of higher education internationalisation were altered in response to Brexit/the COVID-19 pandemic, but the cultural-cognitive frameworks underlying higher education internationalisation remained stable. 

The regulative impact of Brexit on higher education internationalisation
Brexit was accompanied by substantive regulatory changes for student mobility. After years of protracted negotiations, the United Kingdom (UK) left the EU on February 1, 2020. Since January 1, 2021, EU students are required to apply for a paid visa for studying in the UK. Additionally, European students lost their right to reduced tuition fees. On December 24, 2020, the British government unexpectedly announced its withdrawal from Erasmus and the creation of its own mobility program. The non-reciprocal Turing Scheme, which solely provides scholarships for British outgoing students and not for incoming students, was presented as an optimized Erasmus program that would offer taxpayers "greater value for money" (Department for Education and The Rt Hon Sir Gavin Williamson CBE MP 2020). 

For Germany and France, Brexit resulted in the UK being re-categorized as a third country. As a consequence, British students in France now need to apply for a visa, while in Germany, they require a residence permit.

Normative impact of Brexit 
In terms of normative aspects, the British government, in the wake of Brexit, intensified its focus on exporting educational offerings to non-EU markets. In the second national internationalisation strategy, "Global potential, global growth," adopted in 2019, Europe hardly finds mention. Leaving the EU is portrayed as an opportunity to reposition the UK as an educational provider in the European and especially global market. In student exchange, the focus is shifted to Commonwealth countries and the Anglosphere, which also play a central role as target regions in the Turing Scheme. While the British government distanced itself from the EU and non-economic internationalisation motives, the English higher education sector intensified its efforts towards European university partnerships and exchanges. English universities emphasized the shared European history and values, openly expressing criticism of the British government's actions through position papers and symbolic protests, such as flying the EU flag on university buildings.

Both the French and German higher education sectors reacted with dismay to Brexit. However, this initial dismay quickly gave way to a defiant attitude regarding the importance of European cooperation. In both countries, Brexit led to an increased pursuit of partnership agreements with Northern and Eastern European countries. These countries' offerings of English-language programs were seen as an attractive alternative to the lost British Erasmus partnerships. French President Emmanuel Macron's 2017 speech at the Sorbonne University provided the impetus for the creation of the European Universities Initiative (EUI). The rapid implementation of this proposal, which by mid-2024 has resulted in over 60 university alliances involving more than 500 universities, is considered the most significant European internationalisation policy since the Bologna Process.

Cultural-cognitive impact of Brexit
While Brexit-induced changes occurred on both the regulatory and normative levels in all three countries, the changes remained anchored in culturally-cognitive, institutionalized societal perceptions. The normative clash between the British government and the pro-European higher education sector represents a continuation of the divided post-war British politics and identity, characterized by British exceptionalism—representing idea of the UK's special role within Europe and the world—while simultaneously being involved in European integration processes. While the British government used Brexit as an opportunity to institutionalize the departure from the EU through new regulations, English universities actively worked against this, for example, by joining the EUI. 

Thus, the central cultural-cognitive conflict between British exceptionalism and competitive internationalisation on the one hand, and European integration and collaborative internationalisation on the other, continues to persist. In the case of France and Germany, the regulative and normative changes signal a continued commitment to a higher education internationalisation fundamentally oriented towards Europeanization and collaborative activities

The regulative impact of COVID-19 on higher education internationalisation
The COVID-19 pandemic posed very different regulatory challenges for the English higher education sector compared to the German and French higher education sectors. The key factor here is the market-based nature of the English higher education system. Since international students represent a vital source of income for English universities, the expected long-term decline in international student numbers at the beginning of the pandemic posed an existential threat to the financial stability of the sector. 

In response, English universities began compensating for the anticipated loss of international students by gaming established admissions practices: they sent an unusually high number of study offers to domestic secondary school graduates to outcompete other universities. This approach threatened to throw the entire higher education sector into chaos, prompting the British government to temporarily reintroduce the student number cap, a limit on the number of students universities can admit. This cap had been abolished in 2015, thereby introducing full-on market conditions. However, when international student numbers unexpectedly increased rather than decreased during the pandemic, this regulatory change was abolished, and the sector returned to the previous conditions of a fully market-based system—despite the pandemic highlighting significant weaknesses in the system and triggering widespread calls for reform from within the sector.

In contrast, the state-funded higher education systems of Germany and France faced different regulatory challenges. Since—unlike in England—online teaching was not widely practiced in either country before the pandemic, their face-to-face-based regulations had to be expanded in a very short time. This included, for example, enabling the use of online platforms like Zoom, conducting online exams, and allowing online enrolment for students who would not initially be able to physically enter the host country. In Germany, this involved creating an enrolment status for students who participated exclusively in digital classes. In France, the pandemic accelerated the implementation of the digital visa process for international students, a measure that had already been decided under the Bienvenue en France strategy.

Normative impact of COVID-19
In the normative dimension, the COVID-19 pandemic in England reinforced the focus on profitable internationalisation activities, particularly the recruitment of international students, to ensure the survival of universities. In Germany and France, norms regarding the acceptance of digital teaching and administration changed. Virtual exchange and Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) formats gained significant traction as ways to compensate for the loss of physical mobility. In Germany, the DAAD launched several funding lines shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic to systematically advance the digitalisation of internationalisation. It is noteworthy that the increasing digitalisation of internationalisation was already on the agendas of universities and the internationalisation agencies DAAD and Campus France before the pandemic. However, limited financial and personnel resources had previously hindered the rapid implementation of digitalisation reforms.

Cultural-cognitive impact of COVID-19
The observed developments in the three country contexts point to stability of the cultural-cognitive dimension in the three higher education systems. Although the pandemic exposed the risks of a market-based higher education system, England maintained its status quo. Demands for funding reforms demanded by higher education actors fell on deaf ears on the part of the British government. 

In France, pandemic measures and the continuation of the Bienvenue en France strategy were largely directed by a crisis management team within the French government, pointing to a comparably strong state involvement. In Germany, coordination of pandemic measures occurred at both the state level and nationally through the DAAD, and there was a comparably strong focus on the pedagogical component of digital internationalisation. Both France and Germany continued to emphasize international collaboration during the pandemic through virtual exchange programmes with partner universities. Contrary to the expectations of some higher education actors, more market-oriented activities, like transnational online programs, did not become a part of France's and Germany's internationalisation portfolios during the pandemic.

Summary
The comparative study found that Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic did not lead to radical changes of existing internationalisation strategies in the three country contexts. Instead, both disruptions created windows of opportunities that accelerated ongoing gradual changes and reinforced existing internationalisation logics. This was particularly evident in the country-specific stances towards Europeanisation and the digitalisation of higher education.

Anna P. Lohse is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Education at Technical University Berlin, Germany. She received her PhD from the Hertie School – The University of Governance in Berlin and holds an MA in International Education from New York University. 

References

• Crăciun, D. (2019). Systematizing National Higher Education Internationalization Strategies: Reconceptualizing a Process. PhD thesis. Central European University. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/222724257/craciundaniela.pdf
• Department for Education & The Rt Hon Sir Gavin Williamson CBE MP. (2020). New Turing scheme to support thousands of students to study and work abroad. Retrieved March 14, 2023 from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-turing-scheme-to-support-thousands-of-students-to-study-and-work-abroad
• Ebbinghaus, B. (2005). Can path dependence explain institutional change? Two approaches applied to welfare state reform. Discussion Paper 05/2. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
• Knight, J. (2012). Concepts, rationales, and interpretive frameworks in the internationalization of higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. de Wit, J. Heyl & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 27–42). SAGE Publications.
• Lohse, A. P. (2024). Higher Education in an Age of Disruption. Comparing European Internationalisation Policies. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57912-7
• Mahoney, J. (2000). Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. 
• Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Also published on Europe of Knowledge blog.

From the Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies.

Dear colleagues,

I would like to remind you that early career scholars affiliated with the “Knowledge Politics and Policies” Standing Group can apply for our Excellent Paper Award.

In order to be eligible for the 2024 round, the applicant and the paper need to fulfil the following criteria:

• Is an «emerging scholar» = currently enrolled in a PhD programme or has obtained PhD after January 2020;

• Is the Sole or Lead Author in the paper + the paper is topically relevant

  • Papers where all authors are emerging scholars are given priority;

• Presented the paper at a conference or workshop between November  2023 and November 2024

  • A revised version of the paper can be submitted for the competition

• Is a registered member of the Standing Group when applying

Application consists of:

• Paper presented (less than 8000 words, excluding references), along with  details of the conference (panel title, date of presentation)

• CV (2 pages, including details of institutional affiliation)

and needs to be submitted to martina.vukasovic@uib.no by 1 February 2025.

The decision of the jury, comprising Tatiana Fumasoli (UCL, UK), Emanuela Reale (IRCRES NRC, Italy), Kieron Flanagan (U of Manchester, UK), is expected to be announced in May 2025.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Kind regards,

Martina

The 2024 edition of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference took place at the University College Dublin, 12-15 August. The section of our ECPR Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies included 10 panels on topics such as knowledge diaspora, higher education, university governance, science diplomacy, and Artificial Intelligence. This was the 13^th time that we organized a section at the ECPR General Conference. This blog post provides an overview of the topics discussed at our section, written by the panel chairs. 

Knowledge diaspora

Knowledge diaspora policies continue to attract attention from scholars and policymakers, particularly for their role in connecting host and home countries. However, the engagement of diaspora members in higher education remains underexplored. In this panel, we—Tugay Durak, Anatoly V. Oleksiyenko, and Victoria Bauer—examined different dimensions of the diaspora experience. 

Firstly, Tugay Durak discussed how UK-based Turkish academics support fellow nationals through mentorship, guidance, and transnational partnerships, reinforcing higher education internationalization. Then, from Germany, Victoria Bauer highlighted differences between native German, Turkish diaspora, and Turkish international students, emphasizing the need for inclusive policies that address legal status and foster equitable learning environments. Finally, Dr Anatoly Oleksiyenko elaborated on the challenges faced by the Ukrainian knowledge diaspora in North America in contributing to Ukraine, particularly due to resistance from post-Soviet Ukrainian staff. This panel shed light on how diaspora members engage in higher education while navigating distinct challenges in their dispositions and contributions concerning their home countries.

Embracing the future

The panel Embracing the future: Organizational aspiration and adaptability in higher education, chaired by Alexander Mitterle(University of Hamburg) and Roland Bloch (Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg) inquired into how universities craft their own futures. The contributions shared a constructivist outlook on universities, and especially on their organizational actorhood which they considered not as completely subdued to environmental expectations. Rather, universities choose which futures they want to embrace, and thereby perform their own actorhood. The contributions to the panel explored how universities seek to do so in research management, professorial selection committees, and digital teaching as well as how the private higher education sector in Germany is shaped by aspiration and adaptability.

Robert Aust and Frederic Krull (both Institute for Higher Education Research Wittenberg) presented different types of research managers at German universities whose role they located between serving the status quo and the proactive shaping of research strategies. Stella Köchling (Leibniz-University Hannover) shed light on the function of digital visibilities in professorial appointment procedures. Though being visible on social media and elsewhere is a practice that can be taken to embrace the future by itself, it can also speak against the authenticity of professorial candidates, if unbalanced with other work in research (e.g. publications). 

For Roland Bloch, the dramatic decrease of online taught courses at German universities after the pandemic may first appear as rejecting the future and a decoupling of organizational practice from environmental demands. Yet in the case of digital teaching, it is the script that is flawed, suggesting efficiency and improvement where in practice considerable extra (‘invisible’) work is necessary. Finally, Alexander Mitterle reconstructed the lifecourse of private higher education institutions in Germany that are characterized by both relative institutional stability as well as high levels of adaptability. Both findings show that mortality is overestimated in the private higher education sector precisely because infused with considerable actorhood private higher education institutions can adapt more easily and flexibly to changes in the environment.

Actors, goals and instruments in higher education policy

The panel “Actors, goals and instruments in higher education policy” focused on various policy actors operating at different governance levels, and how these actors influence the formulation of goals and development of policy instruments in higher education. Alberto Márquez-Carrascal (also on behalf of his co-authors Laura Cruz-Castro and Luis Sanz-Menéndez) presented an analysis of decentralisation processes in Spanish higher education and how these processes influenced choice of policy instruments. Although diversity of policy preferences between different regional actors would lead one to expect significant policy divergence after decentralisation, the authors find rather moderate changes in governance and link this to structural and environmental characteristics of regional HE systems (e.g. number and type of institutions, level of marketization). 

Michael Oduro Asante presented a first analysis of profiles of elected and employed leaders of interest organisations in the Norwegian education sector, covering the entire education process (from kindergarten to universities), as well as various types of interests (institutions, staff, students, employers etc.). Two typical profiles were identified, contrasting those that have been involved in these organisations for a long time with ones that are newcomers, with key differences being the relevance of administrative and representative experience for both groups. 

Finally, Martina Vukasovic (also on behalf of Mari Elken and Synne Lysberg, the co-authors) presented the theoretical and methodological approach used in an ongoing study on policy coherence in Norwegian higher education. The study distinguishes between substantive and symbolic policy coherence. Based on analysis of policy documents from 1990 onwards, the study will explore how policy layering, policy learning, as well as changes in the constellations of state and non-state actors influence levels of policy coherence over time.

Shifting geopolitics and higher education dynamics 

Presenters in the panel Shifting geopolitics and higher education dynamics examined the implications of fluctuating and unstable global geopolitics on higher education policies and practices. Eva Hartmann’s research brought to light the highly topical issue of academic freedom through a comparison of Germany and the UK’s emerging geopolitical strategies. Building on her work on educational and scientific (public) diplomacy, Hartmann investigates the impact of these new security policies on international higher education and research in light of growing concerns about China. Emma Harden-Wolfson presented the Scales-Agents-Interests-Opportunity Structures (SAIOS) conceptual framework developed with co-author Hannah Moscovitz. Harden-Wolfson and Moscovitz argue that transformations in higher education and the geopolitical environment require new ways of thinking about their intersections, which their new framework is designed to address. 

Merli Tamtik and Alina Felder’s presentation was based on their freshly published article on institutional responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, comparing over 120 universities in Canada and Germany. Tamtik and Felder found strong support for values of peace and solidarity despite the dominance of an economic rationale that has previously guided internationalization in these contexts. A lively discussion with participants followed the presentations. The structural racism that has been evident in varied government and institutional responses depending on different conflicts was evident from a range of contexts. This links to what Hartmann calls the ‘weaponization’ of higher education by governments, underlining the need to continue researching the role of states while also, as Harden-Wolfson and Moscovitz’s framework notes, taking up the connections between higher education and geopolitics from a wide range of scales and perspectives.

The European Universities Initiative

The panel on The European Universities Initiative between Consolidation and Expansion, which featured five papers, examined the growth and deepening collaboration of the initiative since its launch in 2017. It emphasised the potential of these alliances to enhance effectiveness through diversification and sustainable goals. The panel highlighted that the success of these alliances relies on factors such as funding, regulation, and EU integration. The paper on "Knowledge Metropolises" by Lise Moawad and Cornelia Schendzielorz focused on the roles of two university alliances, the Berlin University Alliance (BUA) in Germany and Paris Sciences et Lettres (PSL) in France. The authors explored how these metropolitan alliances influence innovation and policy-making within global networks, establishing themselves as key players in local, national, and European policymaking.

In the paper "European University Initiative between Vertical and Horizontal Europeanisation," co-authored with Alexander Frame, Barbara Curyło illustrated how vertical and horizontal Europeanisation processes are essential for fostering cross-border cooperation through alliances, examining how these processes facilitate both top-down and bottom-up Europeanisation.

Alina Felder's paper, "Allies in the Combat Against Climate Change," highlighted the strategic importance of collaboration in addressing global environmental challenges. Her analysis demonstrated how alliances are being mobilised to tackle climate change and integrate sustainability into their missions and activities. The paper by Patrik Mottl and Ludmila Dohnalova, "EUI Strategical Approach and Future Sustainability," examined the strategies of European Universities Alliances, highlighting varying approaches, with some alliances prioritising long-term goals while others focus on short-term deliverables. The paper raised concerns about sustainability as external funding wanes, emphasising the need for sharing best practices and additional support from the European Commission.

Finally, the paper "European Universities Initiative: Between Consolidation and Expansion" by Marina Cino Pagliarello and Andrew Gunn explored the geographical and political dimensions of the EUI, including its expansion beyond the EU to involve associate members from non-EU countries. It also addressed the crucial issues of sustainability and financial autonomy for these alliances. Collectively, these five papers underscored the key role that alliances play in driving cooperation and tackling major societal challenges, making a compelling case for their continued importance in shaping the future of European higher education and global policy landscapes.

Unpacking the migration-higher education nexus

In the panel Unpacking the migration-higher education nexus: Actors, policies, and power, the panellists examined the evolution and effects of changing migration policies and higher education practices around the world. Meng-Hsuan Chou and Tero Erkkilä kicked off the panel with “Migration governance and university rankings”, highlighting the ways that migration regimes have incorporated global university rankings as part of the admissions and visa renewal process. Looking at the UK, Hong Kong, and Singapore, Chou and Erkkilä differentiated how the global university rankings activated mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion in their respective migration regimes. Aneta Hayes continued with “Fragility of regionalism as a critical lens for understanding internationalisation policies and staff mobility”, inviting us to embrace an intersectional perspective of internationalisation. Using the policies and practices of Gulf Cooperation Council states, Hayes argued that internationalised talent is a more accurate term for capturing contemporary modes of mobility. 

Lisa Brunner then presented the changing policies of internationalisation at a distance in Canada in “‘Edugration’ at a distance: Virtual internationalization, migration, and discourses of ‘taking up space’”. Brunner revealed how Canada has now altered its COVID-19 pandemic practice of allowing international students to remain at home while accumulating access to permanent residence. Hila Zahavi and Ayala Hendin wrapped up the panel with “Should I stay or should I go? Expected trends in Israeli higher education internationalization and academic migration following the 2023 war”. Zahavi and Hendin presented ways of how higher education internationalisation practices of Israeli academia have been curtailed and challenged. 

University Presidents and the Question of Organizational Actorhood

In the panel on university presidents and the question of organizational actorhood four different papers discussed the role university presidents play for positioning universities in competition, for dealing with conflicting demands in the organization and for manoeuvring the university through times of crisis. Leonie Buschkamp investigated in her presentation the role of university presidents as boundary spanner in the context of interorganizational competition and competing universities. Vivien Dos Anjos, Anna Kosmützky and Georg Krücken analysed crisis communication by universities and their presidents related to how US Universities reacted to the Attack on Israel and the War in Gaza. 

Bernd Kleimann elaborated a concept of universities as hybrid organizations and presidents as actors taking different roles. Some of them offer them the opportunity to act, in others they have to react. Tim Seidenschnur argued that in order to understand the role of university presidents related to the debate on organizational actorhood, it is necessary to focus more intensively on ‘coalitions of the willing’. Such coalitions are groups of academics formed by university leaderships to reach their goals in different competitions. From different perspectives, these contributions shed light on university presidents’ role related to the organizational development in turbulent times and pointed to relevant issues for future research. 

Artificial Intelligence, Power & Politics

For the fifth year, the section included a panel on Artificial Intelligence (AI). Our previous four AI panels resulted in a special issue on Politics and policy of Artificial Intelligence launched lasted year. This year’s panel focused on one of the five overarching topics from this special issue, namely the question of power asymmetries in AI, which is characterized by high concentration of power in a small number of big tech companies. In the first talk, Roxana Radu presented her research on the second generation of national AI strategies, identifying continuities as well as new priorities and departures, compared to the first generation of AI strategies. The second presentation by Tero Erkkilä and Konstantinos Kostas took a closer look at one specific second generation AI strategy, namely, the Finnish AuroraAI strategy, examining hybridity in algorithmic governance.

Ronit Justo-Hanani presented her work on risk-based approach to AI regulation, with a special focus on the role of co-regulation. Meng-Hsuan Chou discussed the case of on-demand food delivery in Singapore from the perspective of policy design and power. Finally, Inga Ulnicane talked about the role of the government in shaping the development and use of AI, asking if the government is reinforcing or re-shaping existing power asymmetries in AI. This well-attended panel ended with a round of questions, including about the role of companies and society in AI development, involvement of Global South, and policy implementation. Lively discussion at this panel as well as at the opening AI roundtable of the conference suggested that there is a lot of interest to further examine politics of AI. If you would like to join our future AI activities, please let us know. 

Science diplomacy

In the panel Advancing the study of science diplomacy three papers were discussed. Anna-Lena Rueland presented new research titled, ‘From North to South? Unveiling Geographical Patterns in the Science Diplomacy Literature’. The research, with co-authors, Carringtone Kinyanjui, Bruno Grisci, Lise Andersen, Annika Ralfs, explored the development and geographical distribution of publications in the field of science diplomacy over the past two decades. The quantitative study, making use of GPT-4 and other methods identified a number of interesting patterns and changes. 

In his paper, ‘Motivations, roles, and power dynamics at the Knowledge-Policy interface: The co-production of Digital Sequence Information governance at the Convention for Biological Diversity’ Adam McCarthy presented his findings on how international boundary organisations facilitate the exchange between knowledge and policy. His paper introduced an innovative framework for understanding and analyzing international negotiations. Drawing on observations from ongoing efforts to govern biological 'Digital Sequence Information' (DSI) under the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), it also explored the north/south issues encountered in such settings. Mitchell Young’s presentation ‘The evolution of EU science diplomacy policy’ looked at how recent geopolitics were changing the way the EU approached its science policies and archetypes of science diplomacy.

Standing group business

During our Standing Group business meeting, we celebrated the winners of the latest edition of our Standing Group excellent paper award Linda Maria Wanklin and Cecilia Ivardi, both affiliated with the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. Soon the call will be out for the next round of the excellent paper award, stay tuned! We also planned our upcoming activities, including our section at the 2025 ECPR General Conference that will take place at Thessaloniki, Greece, 26-29 August. If you are interested, please get in touch and join our Standing Group on Knowledge Politics and Policies. We are looking forward to hearing from you!

This blog post was originally published on Europe of Knowledge blog.