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.

Universities not only produce Europe’s intellectual elites and scientific knowledge, but they are also key actors in science diplomacy, regional innovation ecosystems and cultural reproduction. The European Union (EU) is increasingly recognizing this and engages in the steering of European universities, for example through its funding programmes. The most recent EU endeavor in this regard is the European Universities Initiative (EUI) which consists of strong incentives for top European universities to merge into transnational networks of universities. This mission has been espoused by 64 university alliances so far, comprising of more than 560 higher education institutions and covering 54% of all PhD students in Europe. The size and intensity of this collaboration throws a new light at the big questions of the relationship between Europe and its universities.

The pre-conference workshop at the biannual meeting of the Standing Group on European Union of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) that took place in Lisbon in June aimed to address these big questions and provide some of the answers based on the research pursued by early careers researchers (ECRs) sharing a common interest in the phenomenon of European University Alliances. The workshop addressed the two-way processes binding the European Union and its universities: the effects of EU policies on European universities’ research output, teaching practices and service to society, and vice versa, the effect that the higher education sector with its scientific and intellectual output, skills and knowledge formation has on Europe of today. The workshop gathered twelve ECRs presenting their papers and four senior academics who acted as discussants (Daniela Craciun, Lukas Graf, Marina Cino Pagliarello and Marcelo Marquez). Below are some of the key findings from the emerging research from ECRs active in the fields of European studies, political science, public policy and organisational studies applied to the case of European University Alliances. 

Knowledge politics and policies in the EU: The origins of the European Universities Initiative 

It is not a given that the European Universities Initiative (EUI) has gained traction among top-performing universities across Europe. Applying Kingdon’s (1984, 2010) Multiple Streams Theory,  Courtney Hartzell (Ghent University) and Daniela Craciun (University of Twente) found in their study that the European Commission acted as a policy entrepreneur. The Commission succesfully pushed the idea of a „European university“ through the policy cycle in the moment when overlapping windows of opportunity opened in the politics and problem streams in 2017 with Brexit and French President’s Emmanuel Macron speech at the Sorbonne University.

The policy stream that engendered the EUI is subject of Antonin Charret’s (University of Oxford) joint study with Alis Oancea and Maia Chankseliani. They offer a novel analytical tool, plastique palimpsestes, to explore how entangled national institutional contexts, historical perspectives, and higher education policy priorities have shaped the policy development of the EUI. In the crafting of a new European higher education policy, past developments such as for example the Erasmus+ programme and the Bologna Process have not been replaced, but continue to have a major influence.

The complex interplay of policies at European and national level affecting universities was also the topic of Marcelo Marquez’ paper (University of Luxembourg) who argues that the EUI is driving policy integration between European higher education and research policy sectors that have in the past evolved in rather disarticulated ways. Analysing 75 relevant EU policy documents mentioning the EUI between 2018 and 2024, the author finds a wide distribution of authorship among different policy sectors and cross-sectoral topic distribution indicating a level of policy integration unseen before between the sectors of education and research policy at EU level.

Related to the European Research Area, in her paper co-authored with Lise Moawad, Cornelia Schendzielorz (Humboldt University Berlin) addresses the issue of universities’ membership in multiple alliances. The authors uncover the role of local university alliances in the European Research Area by analyzing the relationship between local and European university alliances. The analysis uncovers similarities and differences regarding science policy aims, the degree of alliance integration and the position of the alliances in the spectrum between excellence and cohesion.

Alliance cooperation and transformational change at higher education institutions: The results of the European Universities Initiative

The fact that the EUI ought to transform European higher education institutions into universities of the future has fueled scholarly interest in diverse organizational aspects of alliance cooperation. The contribution by Albert Nijboer (Catholic University Milan) asks if we are observing elements of pervasive change in those institutions that are involved in the EUI and how the involved institutional stakeholders (university leaders, academics, administrators and students) perceive this change. Nijboer maps the formal relations between institutional representatives and conducts social network analysis based on survey and interview data.

The role of networks established through the EUI also relates to Carlos Cuevas’ (Technical University of Munich) study on the fostering of responsible research and innovation (RRI) through co-creation and university alliances. Cuevas explores how European University Alliances, RRI and co-creation intertwine. He finds that when building on the EUI alliances to foster RRI and co-creation not only fragmentation needs to be anticipated, but also nuances between diverse notions of co-creation, which means to identify what falls between the cracks of different projects and their components.

Connected to the issue of network strategies, Francesco Girotti (Catholic University Milan) investigates the effect of EUI participation on universities’ internationalization practices. His quantitative survey of 354 universities participating in the EUI uncovers how the EUI is embedded into the institutional (infra)structures of the participating universities and, the extent to which the EUI fosters the development of new internationalization practice including governance structures.

When assessing the novelty of cooperation structures and practices resulting from the EUI the perspective of those who are responsible for the initiative’s implementation is indispensable. In her work, Agata Mannino (Catholic University Milan) focuses on university middle managers who are key for broadening internal stakeholder involvement in the participating institutions. Through sensemaking theory, she uncovers the challenges of aligning expectations, motivations, and goals within universities, between alliance members, and with external stakeholders.

The impact of university alliances ultimately depends on the buy in of academic staff in strategic alliances, an issue which was demonstrated by Hana Fehrenbach’s (University of Freiburg) study. Drawing on intrinsic ambiguity from organization theory, the study offers insights into the inward and outward organizational processes and structures underlying the pursuit of transnational strategic alliances in complex environments. The findings highlight the crucial role of organizing in navigating these ambiguities.

Yet another important group of alliance stakeholders are university leaders, who are at the center of Katalin Szondy’s (St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences) contribution. Being part of an alliance should encourage executives, like higher education institution presidents, to embrace transformative processes towards international collaboration in a European University Alliance (EUA). Szondy identifies the most effective leadership styles among executive leaders of universities of applied sciences within EUAs with a particular focus on the fostering of staff readiness. 

Beyond alliance cooperation and funding implementation: The impact of the European Universities Initiative

One core issue beyond alliance cooperation is integration and the question whether EUAs cause a convergence of national higher education policies. Nadia Manzoni (Central European University) zooms into the European degree policy with ongoing discussions among EU Member States in the Council of the European Union. She analyses how EUAs have become an important driver pushing for regulatory frameworks to be relaxed or aligned in order to meet the goals set to them by the EU-level policy and by the funding instruments.

The question if EU policy initiatives consolidate the supranational policy layer underlies Alina Felder’s (University of St. Gallen) work. Combining policy feedback thinking with relational Europeanization approaches, Felder finds that universities do not only make use of EU funding to expand their capacities for cooperation, but that their continued use of EU funding also lets them act as shapers of the very opportunity structures they benefit from. This applies to both university networks in border regions and to those most recently funded by the EUI.

A consolidating field of study

Finally, many of the workshop contributors are presently involved in the preparation of an edited volume on the 5th anniversary of the European Universities Initiative, to be published with Springer Nature in the Higher Education Dynamics Series. The book, aimed at both scholars and practitioners and policy makers, will provide a comprehensive overview of the main themes and debates surrounding European University Alliances from an interdisciplinary perspective and equally, provide directions for future research in the area. Academic research on the topic as well as critical self-reflection by those involved in this initiative strengthens the foundations of the house of European higher education that the EU is co-building with universities.

This post was initially published on Europe of Knowledge blog platform

The release of ChatGPT in late 2022 captured the public imagination. It provided a tool everyone can play around, making Artificial Intelligence (AI) accessible to many. It also raised a lot of urgent questions, including about protecting copyrights, fighting disinformation, and avoiding discrimination. These and other questions were dealt with in several governance and policy initiatives, developed in the context of a new hype characterized by high positive and negative expectations surrounding ChatGPT. In my recent article ‘Governance fix? Power and politics in controversies about governing generative AI’ (Ulnicane 2024), I examine emerging governance of generative AI with a particular focus on activities of G7, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the AI Safety Summit. 

Focusing on risks, neglecting purpose & society

To examine the key ideas about the generative AI governance, I draw on the Responsible Innovation approach, which already for more than ten years has been widely used in technology governance research and practice.  While the Responsible Innovation approach is broad and fluid, I in particular focus on the three features. First, it focusses on collective stewardship of technology towards socially beneficial goals and goes beyond individual responsibility of technology developers. Second, the Responsible Innovation approach emphasizes the importance of inclusion of the public in a two-way consultation, assigning an active role to society in co-shaping technology. Third, its approach to technology governance goes beyond mere risk management to encompass the purpose and direction of innovation. 

The initial international initiatives for governance of generative AI fall short of the premises of inclusive and purposeful governance of technology, as suggested by the Responsible Innovation approach. They predominantly focus on risks, framing the public debate about generative AI largely in terms of existential vs immediate risks. Concerns about the risk management dominate over the considerations of purpose of this technology. Generative AI can be characterized as being largely a supply-driven technology push with unclear public demand. Its early governance initiatives pay relatively little attention to its contribution to tackling major societal challenges of our time. Moreover, they assign a rather passive role for society that needs to adapt and contribute to risk mitigation rather than actively co-shape the technology. This creates a kind of paradox of generative AI governance, when a technology that is used widely by society is at the same time governed narrowly by technical experts.

Governance fix: instrumental, narrow & technocratic 

I coin the term ‘governance fix’ to highlight instrumental and technocratic approach to governance in generative AI policy. To do that, I build on the concept of ‘technological fix’ that presents technology as a quick and cheap solution to complex and uncertain social problems. According to the ‘technological fix’ concept, technical solutions are seen as superior to political, economic, educational and other social science approaches to tackling problems. Accordingly, engineers are best placed to solve social problems and there is no need for public participation. 

While technological fix remains a highly popular approach, it has received considerable criticism for being incomplete, ineffective, mechanical, not getting to the heart of the problem, and creating new problems as it solves the old ones. Prioritization of technical solutions allows technology companies to promote their vested interests, while letting policymakers avoid searching for more complex approaches to addressing problems that require immediate attention. 

I suggest that in the case of generative AI, we can observe a ‘governance fix’ approach that, similarly to ‘technological fix’, considers governance as a technocratic endeavour that can be quickly developed and implemented by experts without public participation and deliberation regarding goals, direction and purpose of generative AI. As an alternative to this narrow and technocratic approach, I suggest participatory and inclusive governance that focuses on co-shaping technology towards socially beneficial goals.

Let’s continue the conversation!

AI, including generative AI, continues to pose major political questions. More research on politics, power and policy of AI is in the works. If you are interested to collaborate, please get in touch. Those attending the ECPR General Conference in Dublin, might be interested to attend the featured roundtable ‘Politics, Political Science, and Artificial Intelligence’ on Monday, 12 August 11:15-13:00 and a panel ‘Challenging power in Artificial Intelligence politics and policies’ on Wednesday, 14 August 16:15-18:00. Hope to see many of you there!

Reference:

Ulnicane, I. (2024) Governance fix? Power and politics in controversies about governing generative AI, Policy and Society, puae022, https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae022

This post was initially published on Europe of Knowledge blog.