SRHE Blog

The Society for Research into Higher Education

Category Archives: Global Perspectives


by Leave a comment

Widely used but barely trusted: understanding student perceptions on the use of generative AI in higher education

by Carmen Cabrera and Ruth Neville

Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools are rapidly transforming how university students learn, create and engage with knowledge. Powered by techniques such as neural network algorithms, these tools generate new content, including text, tables, computer code, images, audio and video, by learning patterns from existing data. The outputs are usually characterised by their close resemblance to human-generated content. While GAI shows great promise to improve the learning experience in various disciplines, its growing uptake also raises concerns about misuse, over-reliance and more generally, its impact on the learning process. In response, multiple UK HE institutions have issued guidance outlining acceptable use and warning against breaches of academic integrity. However, discussions about the role of GAI in the HE learning process have been led mostly by educators and institutions, and less attention has been given to how students perceive and use GAI.

Our recent study, published in Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, helps to address this gap by bringing student perspectives into the discussion. Drawing on a survey conducted in early 2024 with 132 undergraduate students from six UK universities, the study reveals an impactful paradox. Students are using GAI tools widely, and expect their use to increase, yet fewer than 25% regard its outputs as reliable. High levels of use therefore coexist with low levels of trust.

Using GAI without trusting it

At first glance, the widespread use of GAI among students might be taken as a sign of growing confidence in these tools. Yet, when students are asked about their perceptions on the reliability of GAI outputs, many express disagreement when asked if GAI could be considered a reliable source of knowledge. This apparent contradiction raises the question of why are students still using tools they do not fully trust? The answer lies in the convenience of GAI. Students are not necessarily using GAI because they believe it is accurate. They are using it because it is fast, accessible and can help them get started or work more efficiently. Our study suggests that perceived usefulness may be outweighing the students’ scepticism towards the reliability of outputs, as this scepticism does not seem to be slowing adoption. Nearly all student groups surveyed reported that they expect to continue using generative AI in the future, indicating that low levels of trust are unlikely to deter ongoing or increased use.

Not all perceptions are equal

While the “high use – low trust” paradox is evident across student groups, the study also reveals systematic differences in the adoption and perceptions of GAI by gender and by domicile status (UK v international students). Male and international students tend to report higher levels of both past and anticipated future use of GAI tools, and more permissive attitudes towards AI-assisted learning compared to female and UK-domiciled students. These differences should not necessarily be interpreted as evidence that some students are more ethical, critical or technologically literate than others. What we are likely seeing are responses to different pressures and contexts shaping how students engage with these tools. Particularly for international students, GAI can help navigate language barriers or unfamiliar academic conventions. In those circumstances, GAI may work as a form of academic support rather than a shortcut. Meanwhile, differences in attitudes by gender reflect wider patterns often observed on academic integrity and risk-taking, where female students often report greater concern about following rules and avoiding sanctions. These findings suggest that students’ engagement with GAI is influenced by their positionality within Higher Education, and not just by their individual attitudes.

Different interpretations of institutional guidance

Discrepancies by gender and domicile status go beyond patterns of use and trust, extending to how students interpret institutional guidance on generative AI. Most UK universities now publish policies outlining acceptable and unacceptable uses of GAI in relation to assessment and academic integrity, and typically present these rules as applying uniformly to all students. In practice, as evidenced by our study, students interpret these guidelines differently. UK-domiciled students, especially women, tend to adopt more cautious readings, sometimes treating permitted uses, such as using GAI for initial research or topic overviews, as potential misconduct. International students, by contrast, are more likely to express permissive or uncertain views, even in relation to practices that are more clearly prohibited. Shared rules do not guarantee shared understanding, especially if guidance is ambiguous or unevenly communicated. GAI is evolving faster than University policy, so addressing this unevenness in understanding is an urgent challenge for higher education.

Where does the ‘problem’ lie?

Students are navigating rapidly evolving technologies within assessment frameworks that were not designed with GAI in mind. At the same time, they are responding to institutional guidance that is frequently high-level, unevenly communicated and difficult to translate into everyday academic practice. Yet there is a tendency to treat GAI misuse as a problem stemming from individual student behaviour. Our findings point instead to structural and systemic issues shaping how students engage with these tools. From this perspective, variation in student behaviour could reflect the uneven inclusivity of current institutional guidelines. Even when policies are identical for all, the evidence indicates that they are not experienced in the same way across student groups, calling for a need to promote fairness and reduce differential risk at the institutional level.

These findings also have clear implications for assessment and teaching. Since students are already using GAI widely, assessment design needs to avoid reactive attempts to exclude GAI. A more effective and equitable approach may involve acknowledging GAI use where appropriate, supporting students to engage with it critically and designing learning activities that continue to cultivate critical thinking, judgement and communication skills. In some cases, this may also mean emphasising in-person, discussion-based or applied forms of assessment where GAI offers limited advantage. Equally, digital literacy initiatives need to go beyond technical competence. Students require clearer and more concrete examples of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable use of GAI in specific assessment contexts, as well as opportunities to discuss why these boundaries exist. Without this, institutions risk creating environments in which some students become too cautious in using GAI, while others cross lines they do not fully understand.

More broadly, policymakers and institutional leaders should avoid assuming a single student response to GAI. As this study shows, engagement with these tools is shaped by gender, educational background, language and structural pressures. Treating the student body as homogeneous risks reinforcing existing inequalities rather than addressing them. Public debate about GAI in HE frequently swings between optimism and alarm. This research points to a more grounded reality where students are not blindly trusting AI, but their use of it is increasing, sometimes pragmatically, sometimes under pressure. As GAI systems continue evolving, understanding how students navigate these tools in practice is essential to developing policies, assessments and teaching approaches that are both effective and fair.

You can find more information in our full research paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603108.2025.2595453

Dr Carmen Cabrera is a Lecturer in Geographic Data Science at the Geographic Data Science Lab, within the University of Liverpool’s Department of Geography and Planning. Her areas of expertise are geographic data science, human mobility, network analysis and mathematical modelling. Carmen’s research focuses on developing quantitative frameworks to model and predict human mobility patterns across spatiotemporal scales and population groups, ranging from intraurban commutes to migratory movements. She is particularly interested in establishing methodologies to facilitate the efficient and reliable use of new forms of digital trace data in the study of human movement. Prior to her position as a Lecturer, Carmen completed a BSc and MSc in Physics and Applied Mathematics, specialising in Network Analysis. She then did a PhD at University College London (UCL), focussing on the development of mathematical models of social behaviours in urban areas, against the theoretical backdrop of agglomeration economies. After graduating from her PhD in 2021, she was a Research Fellow in Urban Mobility at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), at UCL, where she currently holds a honorary position.

Dr Ruth Neville is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), UCL, working at the intersection of Spatial Data Science, Population Geography and Demography. Her PhD research considers the driving forces behind international student mobility into the UK, the susceptibility of student applications to external shocks, and forecasting future trends in applications using machine learning. Ruth has also worked on projects related to human mobility in Latin America during the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between internal displacement and climate change in the East and Horn of Africa, and displacement of Ukrainian refugees. She has a background in Political Science, Economics and Philosophy, with a particular interest in electoral behaviour.


by Leave a comment

Collegiality and competition in German Centres of Excellence

by Lautaro Vilches

Collegiality, although threatened by increasing competitive pressures and described as a slippery and elastic concept, remains a powerful ideal underpinning academic and intellectual practices. Drawing on two empirical studies, this blog examines the relationships between collegiality and competition in Centres of Excellence (CoEs) in the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) in Germany. These CoEs are conceptualised as a quasi-departmental new university model that contrasts with the ‘university of chairs’, which characterises the old Humboldtian university model, organised around chairs led by professors. Hence my research question: How do academics experience collegiality, and how does it relate to competition, within CoEs in the SSH?

In 2006, the government launched the Excellence Strategy (then known as the Excellence Initiative), which includes a scheme providing long-term funding for Centres of Excellence. Notably, this scheme extends beyond the traditionally more collaborative Natural Sciences, to encompass the Social Sciences and Humanities. Germany, therefore, offers a unique case to explore transformations of collegiality amidst co-existing and overlapping university models. What, then, are the key features of these models?

In the old model of the ‘university of chairs’ the chair constitutes the central organisational unit of the university, with each one led by a single professor. Central to this model is the idea of collegial leadership according to which professors govern the university autonomously, a practice that can be traced back to the old scholastic guild of the Middle Ages. During the eighteenth century, German universities underwent a process of modernisation influenced by Renaissance ideals, culminating in the establishment of University of Berlin in Prussia in 1810 by Wilhelm von Humboldt. By the late nineteenth century, the Humboldtian model of the university had become highly influential, as it offered an organisational template in which the ideals of academic autonomy, academic freedom and the  integration of research and teaching were institutionalised.

Within the university of chairs, collegiality is effectively ‘contained’ and enacted within individual chairs. In this structure, professors have no formal superiors and academic staff are directly subordinate to a single professor (as chair holder) – not an institute or faculty. As a result, the university of chairs is characterised by several small and steep hierarchies.

In recent decades – alongside the rise of the United States as the hegemonic power – the Anglo-American departmental model spread across the world, a shift that is associated with the entrepreneurial transformation of universities as they respond to growing competitive pressures.

Remarkably, CoEs in the SSH in Germany are organised as ‘quasi-departments’ resembling a multidisciplinary Anglo-American department. They are very large in comparison with other collaborative grants, often comprising more than 100 affiliated researchers. They are structured around several ‘Research Areas’ and led by 25 Principal Investigators (mostly professors) who must agree on the implementation of the multidisciplinary and integrated research programme on which the CoE is based.

The historical implications of this new model cannot be overstated. CoEs appear to operate as Trojan horses: cloaked in the prestige of excellence, they have introduced a fundamentally different organisational model into the German university of chairs, an institution that has endured over centuries.

Against the backdrop of these two models, what are the implications for collegiality and its relation to competition? A few clarifications are necessary. First, much of the research on collegiality has focused on governance, ignoring that collegiality is also practised ‘on the ground’. Here, I will define collegiality (a) as form of ‘leadership and governance’, involving relations among leaders as well as interactions between leaders and those they govern; (b) as an ‘intellectual practice’ that can be best observed in the enactments of collaborative research; and (c) as a form of ‘citizenship’, involving practices that signify belonging to the CoE and its academic community.

Second, adopting this broader understanding requires acknowledging that collegiality is not only experienced by professors (in governing collegialy the university) but also by the ‘invisible’ academic demos, namely Early Career Researchers (ECRs). Although often employed in precarious positions, ECRS are nonetheless significant members of the academic community, in particular in CoEs, which explicitly prioritise the training of ECRs as a core objective. Whilst ECRs are committed full time to the CoE and sustain much of its collaborative research activity, professors remain simultaneously bound to the duties of their respective positions as chairs.

A third clarification concerns our normative assumptions underpinning collegiality and its relationship to competition. Collegiality is sometimes idealised as an unambiguously positive value and practice in academia, whilst competition – in contrast – is seen as a threat to collegiality. However, this idealised depiction tends to underplay, for example, the role of hierarchies in academia and often invokes an indeterminate past – perhaps somewhere in the 1960s – when universities were governed autonomously by male professors and generously funded through block grants – largely protected from competition pressures or external scrutiny.

These contextual conditions have evidently changed over recent decades: competition, both at institutional and individual terms, has intensified in academia, and CoE schemes exemplify this shift. CoE members, especially ECRs, are therefore embedded in multiple and overlapping competitions: at the institutional level through the CoE’s race for excellence; and at the individual level, through the competition for getting a position in the CoE, as well as for grants, publications, and networks necessary for career advancement.

How are collegiality and competition intertwined in the CoE? I identify three complex dynamics:

  • ‘The temporal flourishing of intellectual collegiality’ refers to the blooming of collegiality as part of the collaborative research work in the CoE. ECRs describe extensive engagement in organising, leading or co-leading research seminars (alongside PIs or other postdoctoral researchers), co-editing books, developing digital collaborative platforms, inviting researchers from abroad to join the CoE or organising and participating in informal meetings. Within this dynamic, competition is presented as being located ‘outside’ the CoE, temporarily deactivated. However, at the same time, ECRs remain aware of the omnipresence of competition, which ultimately threatens collegial collaboration when career paths, research topics or publications begin to converge. For this reason, intellectual collegiality and competition stand in an exclusionary relationship.
  • ‘The rise of CoE citizenship for the institutional race of excellence’ captures the strong sense of engagement and commitment shown by ECRs (but also professors) towards the CoE. It is expressed through initiatives aimed at enhancing the CoE’s collective research performance, particularly in anticipation of competition for renewed excellence funding. This dynamic reveals that, for the CoE, citizenship and institutional competition are not oppositional but complementary, as collective engagement is mobilised in the service of competitive success.
  • ‘Collegial leadership adapting to multiple competitions’ highlights the plurality of leadership modes, each one responding to different levels and forms of competition. At the level of professors and decision-making processes at the top, traditional collegial governance is ‘overstretched’. Although professors retain full authority, they struggle to reach consensus and to lead these large multidisciplinary centres effectively. This suggests a growing demand for new skills more closely associated with the figure of an academic manager than a professor. The institutional race for excellence thus places considerable strain on collegial governance rooted in the chair-based system. Accordingly, ECRs describe different and, apparently, contradictory modes of collegial leadership. For example, the ‘laissez faire’ mode aligns with the ideals of freedom and autonomy underpinning intellectual collegiality, but also with competition among individuals. They also describe leadership as ‘impositions’, which, on the one hand, erodes trust in professors and decision-making, but, on the other hand, intersects with notions of citizenship that compel ECRs to accept decisions, even when imposed. Yet many ECRs value and expect a more ‘inclusive leadership’ that support the development of intellectual collegiality. Overall, the relationship between collegial leadership and competition is heterogeneous and adaptive, closely intertwined with the preceding dynamics.

How, then, can these dynamics be interpreted together? Overall, the findings suggest that differences between university models matter profoundly for collegiality. Expectations regarding how academics collaborate, participate in governance and decision-making processes and form intellectual communities are embedded in specific institutional contexts.

Regarding the relation between collegiality and competition, I suggest two contrasting interpretations. The first emphasises the flourishing of intellectual collegiality and the emergence of CoE citizenship, understood as a collective, multidisciplinary sense of belonging that is driven by – and complementary to – the institutional race for excellence. The second interpretation, however, views this flourishing as a temporal illusion. From this perspective, competition is omnipresent and stands in a fundamentally exclusionary relationship to collegiality: it threatens intellectual collaboration even when temporarily deactivated; it compels academics to engage in CoE-related work they may not intrinsically value; and it overstretches traditional forms of collegial leadership, promoting managerial modes that erode trust in both academic judgement and decision-making processes. Viewed in this light, competition ultimately poses a threat to collegiality. These rival interpretations may uneasily coexist, and the second one possibly predominates. More research is needed on how organisational contexts affect the relationship between collegiality and competition.

Lautaro Vilches is a researcher at Humboldt University of Berlin and a consultant in higher education. His current research examines the implications of excellence schemes for transforming universities’ organisational arrangements and their effects on academic practices such as collegiality, academic mobility and research collaboration, particularly in the Social Sciences and Humanities. As a consultant he advises universities on advancing strategic change.


by 2 Comments

Studying abroad at home: why Korean students are choosing US branch campuses in Korea

by Kyuseok Kim

In South Korea, education has long been the most powerful route to social mobility and prestige, but a recent study shows how that pursuit is changing. Published in the Asia Pacific Education Review (2025), one of the newest article in transnational education (TNE) research investigates why Korean students are now choosing to study at US branch campuses located inside their own country rather than traveling abroad. Focusing on N University, a US-affiliated institution within the Incheon Global Campus, the study explores how students balance ambition, constraint, and identity in one of the world’s most competitive education systems.

Korea’s higher education landscape is characterised by rigid hierarchies in which the name of a university often outweighs individual academic or professional ability. Admission to elite institutions such as Seoul National, Korea, and Yonsei University is still viewed as a ticket to success. At the same time, US degrees continue to hold exceptional symbolic power, representing international competence, social status, and career advantage. Yet, for many families, studying abroad is prohibitively expensive, while competition for domestic university places remains intense. The result is that a growing number of students are enrolling in American branch campuses at home, institutions that promise the prestige of a US education without the cost and distance of overseas study.

To explain this trend, the researchers propose a Trilateral Push–Pull Model. Traditional models of student mobility describe decision-making as a process between two countries or schools: one that pushes students out and another that pulls them in. However, international branch campuses (IBCs) add a third dimension. Korean universities push students away through limited access and rigid hierarchies. US universities attract them with prestige and global capital but are often out of reach financially and logistically. The IBC exists between these poles, offering an American degree and English-language instruction within Korea’s borders. This framework captures how students navigate overlapping pressures from domestic and global systems.

Drawing on interviews with 21 Korean students, the study reveals several interconnected findings. Many participants viewed the IBC as a second choice, not their first preference but a realistic and strategic option when other routes were blocked. They were attracted by the prestige of American degree, USstyle curriculum (in English), smaller classes, and opportunities for studying at the home campus abroad. At the same time, they expressed anxiety about the ambiguous status of their institution. Several students described N University as “in between”, uncertain whether it was truly American or fully Korean. This ambiguity, they said, made it difficult to explain their school to relatives, peers, or teachers, who were unfamiliar with the branch campus model. In a culture where school reputation carries great weight, such uncertainty caused unease even when students were satisfied with their learning experience.

The study also underscores the continuing role of family influence and educational aspiration. Many students reported growing up in households where parents believed education was the only reliable path to success and were willing to make sacrifices for English proficiency and global exposure. For these families, IBCs offered a middle ground: a way to obtain a foreign education without leaving home or paying international tuition. Students who attended Korean secondary schools typically saw the IBC as an alternative after failing to gain admission to top domestic universities. Those with international or bilingual school backgrounds viewed it as a substitute for studying abroad, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic made overseas education less appealing or feasible.

In both groups, the IBC served as a strategic compromise. It allowed students to maintain a sense of global ambition while avoiding the financial, emotional, and logistical risks of full international mobility. It also provided a form of what sociologist Jongyoung Kim calls global cultural capital: the symbolic value and recognition that come with foreign credentials. By earning an American degree at home, students could claim global status without physically migrating. This pattern illustrates how globalisation in higher education is increasingly taking place within national borders.

Beyond individual motivations, the study connects these choices to larger demographic and policy challenges. Korea’s declining college-age population and government-imposed tuition freezes have created fierce competition among universities for a shrinking pool of students. In this environment, IBCs serve dual roles: they act as pressure valves that absorb unmet domestic demand and as prestige bridges that connect local students to the symbolic power of American education. However, their long-term sustainability remains uncertain. Many IBCs struggle with limited public visibility, uneven recognition, and questions about academic legitimacy. Unless they establish a clearer institutional identity and stronger integration within the local higher education system, they risk being viewed as peripheral rather than prestigious.

The research also broadens theoretical understanding of international education. By incorporating the IBC as a third actor in the push–pull framework, the study challenges the assumption that global learning always requires cross-border mobility. It also refines the concept of global cultural capital, showing that students can now accumulate globally valued credentials and symbolic advantage through domestic avenues. In countries like South Korea, where education is deeply tied to social status, this shift represents an important transformation. The global and the local are no longer opposites but increasingly intertwined within the same institutional spaces.

In conclusion, Korean students’ choices to enroll in US branch campuses reveal a strategic negotiation between aspiration and limitation. These institutions appeal not to those lacking ambition but to those who seek to reconcile global goals with financial and social realities. They reflect a world in which higher education is simultaneously global and local, mobile and immobile. For IBCs to thrive, they must move beyond copying Western models and instead cultivate programs that are meaningful in their local contexts while maintaining international quality.

This article summarizes the research findings from ‘Choosing a U.S. Branch Campus in Korea: A Case Study of Korean Students’ Decision-Making through the Trilateral Push–Pull Model’ by Kyuseok Kim, Hyunju Lee, and Kiyong Byun, published in the Asia Pacific Education Review (2025).

Kyuseok Kim is a PhD candidate at Korea University and a Centre Director of IES Seoul.


by Leave a comment

Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

by Morten Hansen

My research on the history of private international pathway providers and their public alternatives shows how some universities have stopped believing in themselves. Reversing this trend requires investment in their capabilities and leadership.

The idea that universities have stopped believing in themselves as institutions that can take on the challenges of the day and find solutions that are better than those developed by private rivals echoes a point recently revived by Mariana Mazzucato. Mazzucato explains how private firms often are portrayed like lions. Bold animals that make things happen. The public sector and third-sector organisations, on the contrary, are too often seen as gerbils. Timid animals that are no good at developing new and innovative solutions.

Skilled salesmen convinced some universities that private companies are better than universities at teaching and recruiting for university preparatory programmes. The inbuilt premise of this pitch is that universities are gerbils and private providers are lions. One university staff member explained what it felt like meeting such salesmen:

“The thing that sticks most in my mind is the dress. And how these people sat differently, looked differently, spoke differently, and we felt parochial. We felt like a bunch of country bumpkins against some big suits.” (University staff)

The lion-gerbil pitch worked in institutions across England because universities were stifled by three interlocking practices of inaction: outsourcing capability development; taking ambiguous stands on international tuition fees; and refusing to cooperate with other universities.

Outsourcing capability

Universities are increasingly outsourcing core aspects of their operations, such as recruiting international students. While university leadership is often characterised as conservative, my research suggest that this trope misses something critical about contemporary university leadership in English higher education. The problem with the term ‘conservative’ is that it implies that leadership is risk-averse, and comfortable projecting past power structures, practices and norms into the future. This does not correspond to historical developments and practices in the sector for international pathways.

The University of Exeter, for example, submitted incorporation documents for their limited liability partnership with INTO University Partnerships only six years after the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 was passed, which marked the first time in England’s history that this legal setup was possible. They took a big leap of faith in the private sector’s ability to recruit students for them, and after doing so invested time and resources helping INTO to further develop its capability. They even invited them onto their campuses. It is hard to overstate how much these actions diverged from historical practice and thus ‘conservative’ leadership.

What was once a highly unusual thing to do, has over the last two decades thoroughly normalised—to the extent that partnering with pathways now seems unavoidable. One respondent from the private sector explained this change in the following way:

“In 2006, ‘07, ‘08, ‘09, ‘10, the pathway providers were, if you like, the unwelcome tenants in the stately home of the university. We had to be suffered because we did something for them. Now, the relationship has totally moved. It’s almost as if they roll out the red carpet for the pathway providers” (C-suite)

The far more conservative strategy would have been to lean into the university’s core capabilities – teaching and admissions – and scale this up over time. Yet that is precisely what my respondents said ‘conservative’ university leaders were unwilling to do: they did not believe the university could manage overseas recruitment by themselves. As argued by former Warwick VC Nigel Thrift, this timidity is not unique to the recruitment of international students, but also extends to their engagement with government agencies. University management by and large “has done as it has been told. It hasn’t exactly rolled over and played dead, but sometimes it can feel as though it is dangerously close to Stockholm Syndrome” (Thrift, 2025, p3).

Ambiguous stands on international fees have deepened the current crises

There is no law in England that compels universities to charge high international students fees. By setting them as high as possible and rapidly increasing the intake of international students, universities de facto offset and thus obfuscated the havoc that changing funding regimes wreaked on university finances. This has contributed to what Kings’ Vice Chancellor Shitij Kapur calls the ‘triangle of sadness’ between domestic students, universities, and the government.

Had universities chosen to stand in solidarity with their international students by aligning their fees more closely to the fees of home students, then the subsequent crises in funding would have forced universities to either spend less money, or make it clearer to the wider public that more funding was needed, before building up the dependencies and subsequent vulnerabilities to intake fluctuations that are currently on full display. These vulnerabilities were exacerbated by overoptimistic growth plans, and university leadership not always fully understanding the added costs that came with such growth. In an example of this delayed realisation, one Pro-Vice-Chancellor explained to me what it felt like to partner with a private foundation pathway:

“At the time you are signing up for these things, there is euphoria around because they are going to deliver against this business plan, which is showing hundreds of students coming in. International student is very buoyant, you sign up for a 35-year deal. So, everything is rosy. If you then just take a step back and think ‘so what am I exposing the university to?’  …  because in year seven, eight, ten, fifteen whatever, it can all go pear-shaped, and you are left then with the legacy building.” (Pro-Vice-Chancellor)

By seeing fee setting as a practice, that is, something universities do to their own students rather than something that is inflicted by external (market or government) powers, we make visible its ideological nature and implications. The longer history of international fees in Brittan was thus an important site of ideological co-option; it was a critical juncture at which universities could have related in a more solidaric manner towards their students.

Unwillingness to cooperate on increased student acquisition costs

You might, at this stage, be wondering: what was the alternative? The answer is in recognising the structure of the market for what it is: efficiently recruiting and training a large number of international students requires some degree of cooperation between universities. My research, however, suggests that universities have often been unwilling to cooperate because they see each other chiefly as competitors. This competition is highly unequal given the advantage conferred to prestigious universities located in internationally well-known cities.

The irony is that many universities nevertheless end up – perhaps unwittingly – cooperating by partnering with one of the few private companies that offer international foundation programmes. These private providers can only reach economies of scale because they partner with multiple universities at the same time. One executive explains how carrying a portfolio of universities for agents to offer their clients is precisely what gives them a competitive advantage:

“The importance of the pathways to the agents is that they carry a portfolio of universities, and the ambition is that you have some which are very well-ranked and academically quite difficult to get into. And, you try and have a bottom-feeder or two, which is relatively easy to get into academically. The agent is then able to talk to its clients and say, look, I can get offers into these universities. Some of them are at the very top. If you are not good enough there, then you might get one in the middle and I’ve always got my insurance offer for you. […] what the pathways do is that they provide a portfolio that makes that easier.” (Private Executive)

A public consortium with pooled resources and that isn’t shy about strategically coordinating student flows would have functioned just as well, and the Northern Consortium is living proof of this. The consortium in fact inspired Study Group to get into the pathway business themselves. The limited growth of the Consortium, relative to its private rivals, is equally proof of missed chances and wasted opportunities.

Could the gerbil eat the lion?

Private providers can use and have used these practices of inaction to pit universities against each other, over time resulting in lower entry requirements and higher recruitment costs. In this climate, public alternatives such as in-house programmes struggle to survive. Once invited in, pathway companies are also well positioned to expand their business with their partner universities in other ways, deepening their dependence. As one senior executive told me:

“Our aspiration is to say that the heart of what we are is a good partner to universities. They trust us. […] for some of our core partners, we bring in a lot of revenue. And, that then puts us in a really good position to think about the other services that we can add of value.” (Private Executive)

The economic downside of relying on these ‘good’ partners is the expensive and volatile market dynamics that follow. As long as universities are trapped by the notion that they are chiefly competitors best served by outsourcing capabilities to sales-oriented firms and leaving international students to pick up the bill, there is limited hope for any genuine inter-university collaboration and innovation. This limits the public potential for scaling an economically viable and resilient market in the long-run.  As a sector, HE has the know-how, experience, capital, and repute to do this. It’s just about getting on with it!

Morten Hansen is a Lecturer in Digital Economy and Innovation Education at the Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London.


by Leave a comment

Effect of Institutional Autonomy on Academic Freedom in Higher Education Institutions in Ghana

By Mohammed Bashiru and Professor Cai Yonghong

Introduction

The idea of institutional autonomy in higher education institutions (HEIs) naturally comes up when discussing academic freedom. These two ideas are connected, and the simplest way to define how they relate to one another is that they are intertwined through several procedures and agreements that link people, institutions, the state, and civil society. Academic freedom and institutional autonomy cannot be compared, but they also cannot be separated and the loss of one diminishes the other. Protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy is viewed by academics as a crucial requirement for a successful HEI. For instance, institutional autonomy and academic freedom are widely acknowledged as essential for the optimization of university operations in most African nations.

How does institutional autonomy influence academic freedom in higher education institutions in Ghana?

In some countries, universities have been subject to government control, with appointments and administrative positions influenced by political interests, leading to violations of academic autonomy and freedom. Autonomy is a crucial element in safeguarding academic freedom, which requires universities to uphold the academic freedom of their community and for the state to respect the right to science of the broader community. Universities offer the necessary space for the exercise of academic freedom, and thus, institutional autonomy is necessary for its preservation. The violation of institutional autonomy undermines not only academic freedom but also the pillars of self-governance, tenure, and individual rights and freedoms of academics and students. Universities should be self-governed by an academic community to uphold academic freedom, which allows for unrestricted advancement of scientific knowledge through critical thinking, without external limitations.

How does corporate governance affect the relationship between institutional autonomy and academic freedom?

Corporate governance mechanisms, such as board diversity, board independence, transparency, and accountability, can ensure that the interests of various stakeholders, including students, faculty, and the government, are represented and balanced. The incorporation of corporate governance into academia introduces a set of values and priorities that can restrict the traditional autonomy and academic freedom that define a self-governing profession. This growing tension has led to concerns about the erosion of academia’s self-governance, with calls for policies that safeguard academic independence and uphold the values of intellectual freedom and collaboration that are foundational to higher education institutions. Nonetheless, promoting efficient corporate governance, higher education institutions can help safeguard academic freedom and institutional autonomy, despite external pressures.

Is there a significant difference between the perceptions of males and females regarding institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and their relationship?

The appointment process for university staff varies across countries, but it is essential that non-academic factors such as gender, ethnicity, or interests do not influence the selection of qualified individuals who are necessary for the institution’s quality. Unfortunately, studies indicate that women are often underrepresented in leadership positions and decision-making processes related to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. This underrepresentation can perpetuate biases and lead to a lack of diversity in decision-making. One solution to address these disparities is to examine gender as a factor of difference to identify areas for improvement and promote gender equality in decision-making processes. By promoting diversity and inclusivity, academic institutions can create a more equitable environment that protects institutional autonomy and promotes academic freedom for everyone, regardless of their gender.

Methodology and Conceptual framework

The quantitative and predictive nature of the investigation necessitated the use of an explanatory research design. Because it enabled the us to establish a clear causal relationship between the exogenous and endogenous latent variables, the explanatory study design was chosen. The simple random sample technique was utilised to collect data from an online survey administered to 128 academicians from chosen Ghanaian universities.

The conceptual framework, explaining the interrelationships among the constructs in the context of the study is presented. The formulation of the conceptual model was influenced by the nature of proposed research questions backed by the supporting theories purported in the context of the study.

Conclusions and Implications

Institutional autonomy significantly predicts academic freedom at a strong level within higher education institutions in Ghana. Corporate governance can restrict academic freedom when its directed to yield immediate financial or marketable benefits but in this study it plays a key role in transmitting the effect of institutional autonomy. Additionally, there is a significant difference in perception between females and males concerning the institutional autonomy – academic freedom predictive relationship. Practically, higher education institutions, particularly in Ghana, should strive to maintain a level of autonomy while also ensuring that academic freedom is respected and protected. This can be achieved through decentralized governance structures that allow for greater participation of academics in decision-making processes. Institutions should actively engage stakeholders, including academics, in discussions and decisions related to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. This will ensure that diverse perspectives are considered in policy development.

This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education (online 02 January 2025) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23322969.2024.2444609

Bashiru Mohammed is a final year PhD student at the faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. He also holds Masters in Higher education and students’ affairs from the same university. His research interest includes School management and administration, TVET education and skills development.

Professor Cai Yonghong is a professor at Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University. She has published many articles and presided over several domestic and international educational projects and written several government consultant reports. Her research interest includes teacher innovation, teacher expertise, teacher’s salary, and school management.

References

AAU, (2001). ‘Declaration on the African University in the Third Millennium’.

Akpan, K. P., & Amadi, G. (2017). University autonomy and academic freedom in Nigeria: A theoretical overview. International Journal of Academic Research and Development,

Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education,

Aslam, S., & Joshith, V. (2019). Higher Education Commission of India Act 2018: A Critical Analysis of the Policy in the Context of Institutional Autonomy.

Becker, J. M., Cheah, J. H., Gholamzade, R., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2023). PLS-SEM’s most wanted guidance.

Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded
assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial management & data
systems,

Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, and nurture. Routledge.

Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2016). CSR governance and departmental organization: A typology of best practices. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.

Neave, G. (2005). The supermarketed university: Reform, vision and ambiguity in British higher education. Perspectives:.

Nicol, D. (1972) Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility: The Tasks of Universities in a Changing World, Stephen Kertesz (Ed), Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press.

Nokkala, T., & Bacevic, J. (2014). University autonomy, agenda setting and the construction of agency: The case of the European university association in the European higher education area..

Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university Springer Netherlands.

Tricker, R. I. (2015). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford University Press, USA.

Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. & Griffin, M. (2012). Business Research Methods. Boston: Cengage Learning.

Zulu, C (2016) ‘Gender equity and equality in higher education leadership: What’s social justice and substantive equality got to do with it?’ A paper presented at the inaugural lecture, North West University, South Africa


by 1 Comment

Bridging borders in knowledge: the internationalisation of Chinese social sciences

by Márton Demeter, Manuel Goyanes, Gergő Háló and Xin Xu

The dynamics of Chinese social sciences are shifting rapidly. As policies aim to balance domestic priorities with global integration, the interplay between China’s academic output and its international reception highlights critical challenges and opportunities. In a recent study published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education, we analyzed 8,962 publications by the top 500 most productive China-affiliated scholars in Economics, Education, and Political Science between 2016 and 2020.

Uneven impacts across disciplines

Our analysis reveals that most Chinese-authored works in these disciplines are published in Western-edited journals. Political Science publications often focus on China-specific topics, creating what may be interpreted as intellectual silos.

By contrast, Economics stands out for its significant global impact, with Chinese scholars’ publications frequently outpacing the citation rates of their Western peers. Meanwhile, Education and Political Science publications from China generally attract fewer citations compared to those from the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

Why does Economics perform so well? The field’s emphasis on data-driven, globally relevant research – addressing topics like economic policy, market dynamics, and financial crises – positions it effectively within international discourse. Substantial funding and resources further strengthen Economics’ visibility and impact.

In contrast, Education often highlights region-specific practices that may resonate less with a global audience, while Political Science is constrained by political sensitivities and limited opportunities for broad international collaboration.

Patterns of collaboration

Collaboration offers another perspective of Chinese academia’s strengths and limitations. Scholars in Economics and Education often engage in diverse partnerships, with strong connections to both Western and Asian institutions. In contrast, Political Science remains more insular, with most co-authorships occurring within mainland China. This inward focus may restrict the field’s integration into global academic conversations.

At an institutional level, hybrid collaborations – combining domestic and international partnerships – highlight China’s strategic approach to bridging local and global aspirations. However, the predominance of Western collaborators, particularly from the United States, underscores a continued reliance on established academic hubs.

The duality of “siloed internationalisation”

A significant finding of our study is the duality evident in Political Science research: while these publications often appear in international journals, their focus on China-specific issues reflects a form of “scientific nationalism”. This approach limits their global engagement, confining them to niche scholarly communities rather than positioning them as contributors to broader, international dialogues.

The “international in format but national in essence” approach underscores a broader challenge for Chinese academia. It must navigate the tension between adhering to global visibility standards while championing non-Western perspectives and priorities.

Policy and practical implications

Our findings also carry critical implications for policymakers, institutions, and global academic networks. For China, fostering more diverse collaborations – beyond traditional Western partners – can reduce overreliance on dominant paradigms and contribute to a more equitable global knowledge production system. Initiatives with an emphasis on partnerships with Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Eastern Europe, could play a key role in reshaping these dynamics.

We believe that, for the global academic community, greater inclusivity requires deliberate efforts to decenter Western paradigms. Platforms that ensure equitable participation and strategies to protect collaborations from geopolitical tensions are vital for sustaining open and impactful scientific exchange.

Looking forward

The field of Economics exemplifies how targeted investment and international integration can amplify visibility and impact. To replicate this success in Education and Political Science, expanding international collaboration and addressing thematic silos are essential. At the same time, global academic networks must also embrace diverse perspectives to ensure that voices from regions like China enrich rather than merely adapt to dominant discourses.

Importantly, in an era of geopolitical uncertainty, research can serve as a vital conduit for mutual understanding and collaboration. By prioritising equitable partnerships and sustaining global dialogue, we can work toward a more inclusive and, therefore, more resilient academic ecosystem.

Our study offers practical guidance for addressing the challenges of internationalization in Chinese social sciences, providing valuable tools for scholars, institutions, and policymakers working to advance global knowledge production.

For more details, explore our full paper:

Demeter, M, Goyanes, M. Háló, G and Xu, X (2024) ‘The Internationalisation of Chinese Social Sciences Research: Publication, Collaboration, and Citation Patterns in Economics, Education, and Political Science’ https://doi.org/10.1080/23322969.2024.2438240.

Márton Demeter is a Full Professor at the University of Public Service, Budapest at the Department of Social Communication, and he is the Head of Department for Science Strategy. He has extensively published on academic knowledge production in communication studies and beyond.

Manuel Goyanes serves as Associate Professor of Research Methods at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. His interdisciplinary work revolves around theoretically designing, and empirically testing, cutting-edge quantitative and qualitative methodological procedures to scientifically address challenging aspects of social science inquiry 

Gergő Háló, an assistant professor at the National University of Public Service Budapest, specialises in socio-critical studies of geopolitical and gender inequalities in science, academic performance, research assessment frameworks, and higher education policies.

Xin Xu is a Departmental Lecturer in Higher/Tertiary Education at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and the deputy director of the Centre for Skills, Knowledge, and Organisational Performance (SKOPE). Her research focuses on tertiary education and the research on research.


by 2 Comments

Professor Farid Alatas on ‘The captive mind and anti-colonial thought’

by Ibrar Bhatt

On Monday 2 December 2024, during the online segment of the 2024 SRHE annual conference, Professor Farid Alatas delivered a thought-provoking keynote address in which he emphasised an urgent need for the decolonisation of knowledge within higher education. His lecture was titled ‘The captive mind and anti-colonial thought’ and drew from the themes of his numerous works including Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon (Alatas, 2017).

Alatas called for a broader, more inclusive framework for teaching sociological theory and the importance of doing so for contemporary higher education. For Alatas, this framework should move beyond a Eurocentric and androcentric focus of traditional curricula, and integrate framings and concepts from non-Western thinkers (including women) to establish a genuinely international perspective.

In particular, he discussed his detailed engagement with the neglected social theories of Ibn Khaldun, his efforts to develop a ‘neo-Khaldunian theory of sociology’. He also highlighted another exemplar of non-Western thought, the Filipino theorist José Rizal (see Alatas, 2009, 2017). Alatas discussed how such modes sort of non-Western social theory should be incorporated into social science textbooks and teaching curricula.

Professor Alatas further argued that continuing to rely on theories and concepts from a limited group of countries—primarily Western European and North American—imposes intellectual constraints that are both limiting and potentially harmful for higher education. Using historical examples, such as the divergent interpretations of the Crusades (viewed as religious wars from a European perspective but as colonial invasions from a Middle Eastern perspective), he illustrated how perspectives confined to the European experience often fail to account for the nuanced framing of such events in other regions. Such epistemic blind spots stress the need for higher education to embrace diverse ways of knowing that have long existed across global traditions.

Beyond critiquing Eurocentrism, Professor Alatas acknowledged the systemic challenges within institutions in the Global South, which also inhibit knowledge production. He urged for inward critical reflection within these contexts, addressing issues like resource constraints, institutional biases, racism, ethnocentrism, and the undervaluing of indigenous epistemologies through the internalisation of a ‘captive mindset’. Only by addressing these intertwined challenges, he concluded, can universities foster a more equitable and inclusive intellectual environment, and one that is more practically relevant and applicable to higher education in former colonised settings.

This keynote was a call to action for educators, researchers, and institutions to rethink and restructure the ways in which sociological and other academic canons are constructed and taught. But first, there is an important reflection that must be undertaken, and an acknowledgement, grounded in epistemic humility, that there is more to social theory than Eurocentrism.

There was not enough time to deeply engage with some of the concepts in his keynote; therefore, I hope to invite Professor Farid Alatas for an in-person conversation on these topics during his visit to the UK in 2025. Please look out for this event advertisement.

The recording of this keynote address is now available from https://youtu.be/4Cf6C9wP6Ac?list=PLZN6b5AbqH3BnyGcdvF5wLCmbQn37cFgr

Ibrar Bhatt is Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Sciences, Education & Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast (Northern Ireland). His research interests encompass applied linguistics, higher education, and digital humanities. He is also an Executive Editor for the journal ‘Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspective’s, and on the Editorial Board for the journal ‘Postdigital Science & Education’.

His recent books include ‘Critical Perspectives on Teaching in the Multilingual University’ (Routledge), ‘A Semiotics of Muslimness in China’ (with Cambridge University Press), and he is currently writing his next book ‘Heritage Literacy in the Lives of Chinese Muslim’, which will be published next year with Bloomsbury.

He was a member of the Governing Council of the Society for Research into Higher Education between 2018-2024, convened its Digital University Network between 2015-2022, and is currently the founding convener of the Society’s Multilingual University Network.

References

Alatas SF (2009) ‘Religion and reform: Two exemplars for autonomous sociology in the non-Western context’ In: Sujata P (ed) The International Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions London: Sage pp 29–39

Alatas SF (2017) ‘Jose Rizal (1861–1896)’ in Alatas SF and Sinha V (eds) Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon London: Palgrave Macmillan pp 143–170


by 1 Comment

What’s love got to do with neurodiversity and HE art and design?

by Kai Syng Tan

A loveless storm and a love-filled symposium

On 18 November I was ill. I recovered in time to travel to Helsinki for a symposium two days later, but winter storms shut down the airport, delayed flights and lost luggage, including mine. The symposium director Dr Timothy Smith (image 2 below, to the left) had to step in to act as my wardrobe assistant. Like many neurodivergent academics, Tim works across an astonishing range of knowledges, including political science, fine art, public policy and pedagogy. But I’m quite certain that sourcing for clothes to fit 155cm grumpy people isn’t part of their typical repertoire.  

A symposium with person standing to the left holding a microphone; another in the middle, seated, in front of a projection with book cover and QR codes and next to a screen showing live captioning; more people in the foreground on different forms of seating and being
Image 2
Image 3: Fidget toys placed on top of a paper file that reads ‘UNIARTS HELSINKI’, with a name tag with a lime green strap and name ‘KAI’. 
Image 3

Image 2: A symposium with person standing to the left holding a microphone; another in the middle, seated, in front of a projection with book cover and QR codes and next to a screen showing live captioning; more people in the foreground on different forms of seating and being

Image 3: Fidget toys placed on top of a paper file that reads ‘UNIARTS HELSINKI’, with a name tag with a lime green strap and name ‘KAI’. 

Tim’s Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium, which took two years of advocacy and planning, and draws on several more of research across neurodiversity and art education, took place at the University of the Arts Helsinki, modelling best practices for inclusivity, not just for neurodivergent folx. Universities, watch and learn. Yes it can be done. So, what does a symposium led by love look like in action? Let’s spell out a few ways how:   

  • Programming not to neo-liberalist but ‘crip time’ (Kafer 2013), enabling us to process our thoughts, with 30 minute breaks between sessions, and a 2-hour lunch break;
  • Employment of live professional CART (Communication Access Real-Time Translation) captioning – not the still racist AI captioning that does not grasp ‘non-standard’ accents (image 2, to the right);
  • Where divergent modes of being – including horizontally, in motion etc, not just seated or erect – are affirmed (image 2, foreground);
  • Inclusion of fidget toys in the goody bag (image 3);
  • Provision of quiet spaces – no, we’re not talking about a broom cupboard or first aid room doubling, but a (care-)fully decked out sensory rooms for group or solo use, with low lighting, different soft furnishings as well as more sensory objects for people to shut off, calm down and/or regroup (image 4);
  • Detailed maps, diagrams and instructions for ‘walking or wheeling’ to venues; including for a dinner, at a five-star hotel, which was a delicious vegan spread – and entirely free of charge;    
  • Priced at less than one-third the fee of a usual conference at €100 – and that’s for ‘participants receiving full institutional financial support’; otherwise, ‘please select the €0 fee option’;
  • Elevating and celebrating diverse body-minds-worlds whose research, creative and professional practice gather, collide and transcend disciplines, fields of knowledge, cultures, geopolitical borders, and specialisms and in the lineup. This includes shy*play, a pedagogical platform, collective, and art practice comprising teacher-researchers from Netherlands-Spain Antje Nestel and Aion Arribas, who invite us to ‘do neurodiversity’ (images 5a-5b); Estonian-UK PhD candidate Iris Sirendi discussing their Curating for Change curatorial fellowship at the Museum of Liverpool and urging – no, daring – the arts and cultural sector to step up and ‘crip the museum’ (image 6); US-Canadian-Polish feminist researcher and author of several books including Asexual Erotics Professor Ela Przybylo disclosing their new identity/positionality of being autistic, and inviting responses Towards a Neuroqueer Conference Manifesto/a/x.
Image 4: Sensory room, with low blue-green lighting, soft furnishings and soft toys
Image 4
Image 5a: shy*play’s Antje Nestel and Aion Arribas, both holding microphones and reading from papers strewn on a long table
Image 5a
Image 5b: people ‘doing neurodiversity’ in different ways, including by displaying their creations on a wall that acts as a shared canvas
Image 5b
Image 6: Estonian-UK PhD candidate Iris Sirendi at a long desk speaking to a projection with a slide with the heading ‘What’s Next?’ and a logo that reads ‘The Neurodiverse Museum’.
Image 6

Image 4: Sensory room, with low blue-green lighting, soft furnishings and soft toys

Image 5a: shy*play’s Antje Nestel and Aion Arribas, both holding microphones and reading from papers strewn on a long table

Image 5b: people ‘doing neurodiversity’ in different ways, including by displaying their creations on a wall that acts as a shared canvas

Image 6: Estonian-UK PhD candidate Iris Sirendi at a long desk speaking to a projection with a slide with the heading ‘What’s Next?’ and a logo that reads ‘The Neurodiverse Museum’

The above are just a few of the highlights from the in-person session on 22 November 2024, which complements an online symposium with a different programme a week prior on 15 November 2024 for those who prefer the digital interface, both of which are recorded with transcripts which all participants can freely access. 

I’m not singing the praises of the Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium because I was the keynote speaker.

I’m saying the above as I’ve been a keynote as well as participant in more than 100 conferences – and I’m still allergic to them, not least as someone who is hyperactive and literally cannot sit still. I’m also saying this as someone who’s curated several, including one on running as an arts and humanities discourse that a 2014 Guardian article said ‘other conferences could take a leaf out of’, for its 8-minute sprint formats and multi-modal approaches including film screening, meditation sessions and run-chats.

But Tim’s conference was way better. The symposium is prioritising not just neurodivergent and queer – neuroqueer (Walker 2021) – perspectives. Following the positionality of multiply-minoritised researchers in higher education Angel L. Miles, Akemi Nishida and Anjali J. Forber-Pratt at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Vanderbilt University as expressed in their powerful open letter to White disability studies and ableist institutions of higher education (2017), the symposium focuses on research that counter ‘white supremacy and racism; colonialism and xenophobia; ageism; sexism and misogyny; cisnormativity and transphobia; and heteronormativity and heterosexism’.

And I’m sure that Tim, like me, wants other conferences to come, to even better ours. 

So, take our baton. Run with it.

Why neurodiversity? Why now?

‘Neurodiversity’ – broadly the coexistence of different ways of processing information, learning and being – has exploded as a buzzword in the past few years. If you didn’t know that 15-20% (Doyle 2020) of humans are autistic, with dyslexia, Tourettes, ADHD and other forms of neurodevelopmental processes, you will have run into the extensive media coverage, or seen your Gen-Z students or kids declaring their ‘neuro-spiciness’ on Tik Tok.

It is well-established that neurocognitive variants like dyslexia, ADHD and autism are over-represented in the arts and culture (above 30%, eg RCA 2001; Bacon and Bennett (2013); Universal Music (2020)). This is unsurprising, given how neurodiversity, innovation and change-making are powerfully entangled, being essential for human’s evolution, inventiveness, creativity and more. Networks, academic publications, research centres, educational research centres and conferences by/with/for neurodivergent creative researchers have been emerging in the last years too.

This year alone, I was external examiner for two creative PhDs by/for/with neurodivergence, and helped deliver one PhD candidate to the finish line and whom, since 28 November, can now add ‘Dr’ to their name, likely to the chagrin of those who think that only clinicians are ‘real’ doctors and experts. Collectively, these efforts are countering medicalised and deficit approaches to cognitive difference. By 2050, 1.94 billion of the 9.4 billion population will be neurodivergent – making neurodivergence far from a ‘niche’ phenomena or area of research, but one with substantive critical mass.

Those with social capital wear their difference as proud badges of honour. So far so ‘authentic’. 

But surprise, surprise – for the multiply-minoritised, their difference continues to be demonised, pathologised, infantilised, and/or policed. This includes teachers and researchers who draw on their neurodivergence in their teaching and research. That’s also why many aren’t out – or have/want access to diagnosis (which themselves have long waiting lists, are costly and more), etc, and often aren’t reflected in the official figures and studies. It’s also only recently been understood in leadership studies that when a white heterosexual cis-man expresses his ‘true self’, it’s just not acceptable, or even laudable. For those who are not straight, not white, not of the right class, or the right skin tone etc – authenticity comes at a high cost – including literally so. Being dyslexic, I struggle with normative approaches to reading and writing – but reading and writing are literally bread and butter for an academic! Disclosing that you cannot read or write would be tantamount to career-suicide, especially if you are on a fixed-term contract – if you have been able to survive the ableist, racist and sexist HE system at all, that is.    

Harvard, World Economic Forum, NESTA and other global bodies have been selling neurodivergence as the ‘next talent opportunity in the workplace’, ‘competitive advantage’ and a ‘neuroleadership’ antidote to in tackling wicked challenges for the Fourth Industrial Revolution — but without neurodivergent voices in this discussion, isn’t this objectifying and othering?

Then, there’s a certain cartoon-tycoon who has been dominating the headlines. When not firing their critics from their factories and firms, or firing rockets to colonise the moon and Mars, this person is firing spats on social media — before buying up the site to make it their temple for ‘unmoderated toxicity’. After firing pot-shots at child-free cat ladies, they’re asking ‘high-IQ revolutionaries’ to work for no pay for an incumbent government. The latter call is interesting because this person had announced that they are ‘with Aspergers’, using the outdated terminology still instrumentalised by certain ‘high-functioning’ autistic people, to denote that they are a genius — ie a high-IQ revolutionary themselves!    

Why neurodiversity, love and HE art and design?

As an autistic child-free cat lady, it’s my duty to ask other neurodivergent artists, academics, activists and allies within Higher Education (HE) to do more and do better, to call out on dangerous neurodivergent figures and approaches, and to counter that with love. If Machiavellian misfits and messiahs weaponise their neurodivergence, so must neurodivergent movers and shakers dis-arm them.  

Image 7

Caption: Love-led guidelines for to make spaces more inclusive, in diagram form with 8 blocks of texts. From Tan, Kai Syng. Neurodiversity In/& Creative Research Network shared, LIVE, CO-CREATED Community Guidelines since 2022

For several years, I’ve researched into and discussed the need to dismantle harmful narratives of neurodiversity. Through an art-psychiatry project, founding of a global 435-member network for neurodivergent innovators, I’ve urged for a decolonial  — ie shift of focus away from knowledge and practices in the West and global north — and intersectional — ie consideration of a how multiple, complex contexts interact and intersect  — approach. We’ve come up with love-led guidelines for activities (image 7). I’m editing a publication with a major academic publisher, which is possibly the first book with openly neurodivergent academics ranging from early career researchers to established, newly-‘out’ professors, to discuss our research through the prisms of neurodivergence and creativity (c2027). Along the way, we are introducing and foregrounding neurodivergent approaches to knowledge, creative research and writing with play, lived experience and more, thus challenging the dominant, normative habits demanded by the academic publishing industrial complex that emphasise the linear, causal, and ‘neutral’.   

On this SRHE platform, I’ve previously discussed a neurodivergence-inspired pedagogical approach to transform HE culture, illustrating how this isn’t just an armchair exercise or a theoretical pontification from the ivory tower, with examples I have led, such as a four-day festival for Black History Month 2020 in Manchester. To mark Valentines’ day this year, I discussed the need to build love into HE curricula – standing on the shoulders of great artists, activists and teachers before us, like bell hooks, Paulo Friere and James Baldwin.

My keynote at the Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium was entitled ‘Neuro-Futurism and Reimagining Leadership’.  My performance-lecture was based on my book of the same title, subtitled ‘An A-Z Towards Collective Liberation’. Grasping how systemic oppressions are interconnected and how liberatory approaches to education must be joined up is vital in this discussion. I postulate a new intellectual agenda and action plan for ‘leadership’ as discourse and practice anchored in visual arts and arts education. Re-claiming the subject from business or arts management, and away from a trait/talent hinged on individualism, hierarchy, genes or luck, the book – and my performance – entangles critical leadership studies with socially-engaged art and relational aesthetics, embedding neuro-queering, futurity, and Chinese Daoist cosmology for the first time, to introduce ‘neuro-futurism’ as a beyond-colonial, (co-)creative change-making framework.

The participants of the symposium grasped this, responding by describing the performance-lecture as ‘phenomenal’. Brazilian artist-researcher Fran Trento, a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Geosciences and Geography at the University of Helsinki, even took live notes and pictures to add to their mobile participatory art installation, and wheeled it around, further spreading love in HE – literally (Image 8). If it hadn’t been snowing so heavily, Fran would have wheeled their installation outside, beyond the ivory tower, to make visible what the abstract yet very simple four-letter word – love – can look like.  

Image 8: Dr Fran Trento standing next to their mobile installation that comprises a jacket onto which participants can make marks onto, scrolls of film, and a pail with cameras and other creative and critical tools to dismantle harmful narratives and approaches
Image 8
Image 9: A signboard ‘Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium’ covered in snow, in a street raging with a snow-storm with cars passing by in front of a building across the road.
Image 9

Image 8: Dr Fran Trento standing next to their mobile installation that comprises a jacket onto which participants can make marks onto, scrolls of film, and a pail with cameras and other creative and critical tools to dismantle harmful narratives and approaches

Image 9: A signboard ‘Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium’ covered in snow, in a street raging with a snow-storm with cars passing by in front of a building across the road

And love is critical if we want to dis-arm and dismantle violent master (sic) narratives and approaches of neurodivergence. If neurodivergence is a superpower — a trope I have also critiqued as, while useful, it can be reductive/fetishistic, and capitalised by the ‘high-functioning’ to self-select into an elitist club that excludes others — then there are also villains and Machiavellian messiahs who abuse their (super)power. The irony is — and yes, autistic people can grasp irony — is that these self-proclaimed ‘anti-establishment’ ‘outsiders’ are often the very personification and product of the system,as poster boys of capitalism and more. Remember the call for ‘weirdos and misfits’ outside the Oxbridge set to join Number 10 – by figures whose pedigrees were archetypal of the ruling class — private education, Oxford degree, political strategist to a prime minister similarly outfitted?

Now that’s weird!

Braving storms ahead

My luggage got lost – again – on my way back to the UK, but academic and arts and cultural workers must lose neither our focus or hope. As hatred becomes even more mainstreamed and normalised, minoritised body-minds and approaches will remain hardest hit. There will be storms ahead (image 9). We – and that includes you – must step forward and step up. As US author Octavia E Butler (1947–2006) warns, unless we build ‘different leadership’ by ‘people with more courage and vision’, we’ll ‘all go down the toilet’. That’s why the Black science-fiction bestseller, who was also dyslexic, wrote story after story that reimagined different, better realities. 

To not go down the toilet, we must disarm those who weaponise their neurodivergence. Here are some of the things that neurodivergent academics, artists, activists and allies can do:  

  • Shift your curricula to elevate and celebrate efforts that are truly leader-ful, joy-ful and equitable, and directed towards collective liberation. I’ve named several in this article. No excuses.  
  • Stop the hierarchy of normality – within neurodiversity groups in and beyond HE too – that props up antics that are white supremacist, patriarchal, misogynist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, colonialist, capitalist, ableist and extractive. Stop fuelling the misfits and messiahs with ill-intentions. 
  • Instead, invest in and donate your time, energy and skills to support love-led efforts. If you have a voice/ platform and can afford to, mobilise it to push back against the violence. People in senior management paygrades, make use of your position/proximity to the top of the food-chain to action positive change beyond lip service or generic policy statements about the civic duty of HE, and bring to life its promises about equity, social justice and inclusion.

On that latter note, I’m seeking to curate a 3-day international summit in 2026 that re-imagines HE art and design as a change-making and future-making force through neuroqueer, social justice and leadership prisms. This welcomes anyone with a stake in the arts and culture, higher education, social change and inclusive futures, to get together to explore the coexistence of different ways to (un-)learning and being in the world, to share best practices about inclusion, and to collectivise and co-create action plans for more inclusive futures within and beyond the art school and HE. Through quickfire provocations, transdisciplinary speed-dating, reverse-mentoring, co-creation of toolkits, skateboarding tours, running-discourses and other embodied forms of engagement, we will not just learn about ways to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments for neuro-divergent students and staff, but to learn about their innovative approaches, and thus reimagine ways to understand and do ‘leadership’, so as to make positive changes, within and beyond art and design and HE. This shift in paradigm to position art and design higher education is aligned with – and can amplify – other ongoing efforts in the sector, such as the Creative Education Manifesto. Get in touch if you’re keen to help do the work.

All that said, clearly, neither Tim’s symposium or my proposed summit are the only or last word in this matter. You, too, can lead with love, if you don’t already. Prioritise an intersectional approach to neuroqueer the curricula, towards dis-arming stories and approaches that are white supremacist, racist, colonialist, xenophobic, ageist, sexist, misogynistic, classcist, transphobic and heteronormative.

CREDITS: Photographs by Kai. Photograph of Kai by neurodivergent artist-curator-activist-PhD-candidate Aidan Moseby

Kai Syng Tan is an artist, academic, author, and agitator who adores cats and alliteration. Their book Neuro-Futurism and Re-Imagining Leadership: An A-Z Towards Collective Liberation re-imagines leadership as a co-creative, neuro-queered practice centring anti-oppression and futurity: it was published in Summer 2024. See here to join the book tour. Sign up here to participate in the CHEAD Leadership Programme taster entitled What’s love got to do with leadership? led by Kai as a new CHEAD Trustee, which will feature a response by Pascal Matthias, Associate Vice President EDI and Social Justice, University of Southampton and Co-Founder at FACE (Fashion Academics Creating Equality). Kai is Associate Professor in Arts and Cultural Leadership, University of Southampton, UK. All views here are their own.


by Leave a comment

Key trends in Latin American higher education: private institutions, diversity, and online learning

by Maria-Ligia Barbosa

In Latin America, higher education has undergone intense transformation. In the 1950s, there were around 700,000 students; by 1970 the number had increased to 1.9 million, reaching 8.4 million in 1990, 25 million students in 2011, and 30 million in 2019. HE systems in these countries vary greatly. There are countries like Argentina, Chile and Uruguay that are universalised (with a gross enrolment rate of over 60%), while countries like Brazil and Peru are going through the process of massification. The participation of the private sector is very uneven. Argentina and Uruguay have a high proportion of HE in the public sector, while Brazil, and Chile, conversely, have a predominance of enrolments in the private sector. Brazil and Chile opted to keep a relatively small and closed public system and open up space for the private sector. In Argentina and Uruguay, the demand for higher education was met by the public sector.

Latin American HE systems are organised, in general terms, into institutional types that distinguish university institutions from other non-university academic organisations. However, there are relevant differences in dimensions such as governance, size, selectivity and educational offer. Everywhere the university sector tends to have greater administrative and academic autonomy than its non-university counterpart, concentrates on offering long-term and academically oriented courses, and is more selective in academic and socioeconomic terms, as in Brazil, Peru, and Chile. On the other hand, non-university institutions concentrate on vocational or technical-professional courses, of short duration and teacher training, as in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, or are characterised by an offer focused mainly on teaching, with little involvement in research, as in Brazil.

Our group received a 2022 SRHE Research Award leading to a report: Measuring the relationship between institutional diversity and student equity in Latin America countries. The award enabled us to systematise information and analyse HE systems in the five Latin American countries mentioned above. From a conceptual point of view, we drew up a typology of higher education institutions and discussed it with experts.

A distinctive feature of this typology is the method by which it was constructed: different from what is usual in studies of this kind, we did not use administrative categories or theoretically discovered groups. In our analysis, the institutional types, or groups of institutions, arise from empirical data submitted to statistical procedures shown in the literature.

Following this approach, we found that in addition to the contrast between public and private higher education institutions (HEIs), the size of institutions influenced the dynamics of expansion. Notably, Brazil’s higher education system expanded by reducing institutional diversity and concentrating student enrolments. An example could be seen in the first group of HEIs that appeared in this analysis, with a strong enrolment concentration (88 private institutions enrolling 2,730,061 students) and the prevalence of online education. This increase in enrolments was balanced by a noticeable decline in enrolments at traditional and elite institutions.

Our findings suggest that other Latin American countries exhibit institutional patterns similar to that in Brazil. Each system is divided between universities, which tend to be more selective both socioeconomically and academically, and other institutions that focus on lower-prestige, short-term, non-university programs. Universities have an important organizational role in higher education and keep a high degree of legally defined autonomy.

On the other side, the institutional models chosen for teacher training play a key role in shaping differences between countries. The same can be said of the role of private sector that sets Brazil, Chile, and Peru apart from Argentina and Uruguay. However, this distinction is not absolute, as differences among the more privatised HE systems can be traced to the strength or weakness of regulatory institutions. A striking difference among these countries is the extent and role of distance education.

Brazil’s system, dominated by private institutions and heavily reliant on online courses, presents challenges for research into institutional diversity and modality of delivering higher education. The private HE sector in Brazil developed as part of the diversification associated with the first steps of enrolment expansion in the 1960s. However, in the 1990s, enrolment in the private HE sector in Brazil surpassed that of the public sector. The expansion of the private sector was encouraged by changes in education policy and the growth of the middle class, which began to demand more places in higher education. By 1995, enrolments in private institutions were already higher than in public ones, and this trend was consolidated in the following years. Distance learning has also grown exponentially, from 10 courses in 2000 to 10,534 in 2023. In that year, two thirds of the 4,983,992 first-year students opted for distance education, almost all of them (97 per cent) in private institutions.

These figures characterise the Brazilian HE system and have led to an intense political debate on the regulation of distance education and the quality of education in the private sector. In terms of research on institutional diversification, the formation of huge educational conglomerates that bring together very similar institutions seems to point to economic factors of isomorphism. It is possible to hypothesise that the institutional logic oriented towards market action is generalised in the private sector, crystallising an opposition to the logic prevailing in the public sector, which is more oriented towards academic agency. This opposition is emphasised in the more superficial political debate and obscures the subtleties and specificities of the process of diversified expansion of higher education. For example, the impossibility (human and geographical) of offering face-to-face courses in remote regions of the country. Or the possibility of producing innovation in public research universities in partnership with large technology companies.

Analysing the Brazilian case produced debate and made it possible to highlight some key issues for comparing the countries taking part in our project: the role of the university in higher education as a whole; the timing and speed of the expansion of HE; whether HE comprised one or several systems in each country; the different training paths, careers and types of degrees; the modality of delivery of HE; public or private funding of HE; the existence of institutions for the collection and dissemination of data.

We used the concept of institutional types to express the diverse reality of institutions in idealised typical forms – rational in their functioning and unilateral in defining the dominant feature. To organise this variety of elements in a coherent and compatible way we focused on the governance dimension of the higher education system.  The concept of governance allows us to understand the logics of institutional functioning within the HE system and in national society. Governance models define the contours of HE systems, set up the role of the university, the types of careers and degrees, and the ways in which relevant data are collected and disseminated.

As there are several studies on the constituent elements of governance of higher education systems in the countries studied, we decided to sort this material by considering historical lines of their evolution. Starting with the creation of the first institutions, we studied the constitution of specific legislation, the process of expansion, the definition of purposes, the evolution of funding, structure, forms of supervision and evaluation.

The refinement of our conceptual tool (the typology of higher education institutions) highlighted these issues, directing our focus to the dimension of governance. Meanwhile a methodological problem appeared with great force: the different nomenclatures to name the processes, facts, agents and results of the functioning of HEIs in each country or group of countries. The simplest example is the term ‘licenciatura’ – difficult to translate into English – which in Argentina refers to graduates of the university system in the more traditional academic or professional careers, while in Brazil it only designates teacher training at university level.

An initial aggregation of what we already know can be seen in the table below. It was drawn up through dozens of meetings and on the basis of the available literature and that produced by the group’s researchers, as well as official data provided on the websites of ministries of education. As is easy to see, this is still scattered information that needs a more refined conceptual treatment.

To make any kind of comparison between HE structures in different countries it is necessary to analyse them carefully, based on an in-depth understanding of each country’s reality. Each object of interest or each dimension of the institutional typology unfolds into a research question to be analysed in detail.

Our study has provided important tools for analysing fundamental issues, relevant for informing public policies and the actions of public or private institutional leaders. We offer socially and historically informed answers to questions about what higher education is, and what and whom it is for in different countries.

And this is just the beginning: our project includes stages for analysing the efficiency and equity of the different ways of organising higher education. It envisages understanding how higher education impacts on graduates’ careers, on their professional destinies. At the same time, it strives for explaining the extent to which the impacts of higher education are independent of the social origin, gender or race of the students.

Maria-Ligia Barbosa is Associate Professor of Sociology/LAPES/PPGSA/UFRJ, in the LAPES Laboratory for Research on Higher Education at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and holder of the Carlos Hasenbalg Chair/CELAPES/CBAE/UFRJ. http://lattes.cnpq.br/5436482713562659 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7922-8643

This article represents the hard work of the LAPES team: André Pires, André Vieira, Leonardo Rodrigues and Renato Santos. I thank each and every one of them and take full responsibility for any mistakes. More information about our team and our work on our trilingual website: https://www.celapes.org/en


by Leave a comment

Why are there no transnational UK university campuses in Korea?

by Kyuseok Kim

The UK’s Strategic Moves

Transnational Education (TNE) has been a significant strategy for UK universities seeking to expand their global footprint. TNE involves delivering educational programmes across borders, allowing institutions to reach international students without requiring them to relocate. According to The Cross-Border Education Research Team, which is arguably the most reliable source for tracking the worldwide development of transnational higher education, the UK has 46 branch campuses in 19 countries globally as of 2023. The geographic distribution of such educational enterprises is widespread, from Latin America, the EU, the Middle East, to Africa.

The most distinct importer of UK transnational campuses is the Asian region, where 20 outposts (43%) are in operation. China is the biggest host, with nine UK campuses, followed by Malaysia (six campuses) and Singapore (two campuses). Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Uzbekistan each have a single campus. In stark contrast with many successful UK cases in Asia, however, past attempts to establish TNE programmes in South Korea have faced numerous challenges, leading to several high-profile failures. Why is this?

Continued Success in TNE

UK universities are the second largest exporter of international branch campuses next to the United States. In recent years, it appears that UK universities have continued to look towards Asia as a fertile ground for TNE initiatives. For instance, De Montfort University Leicester has become the first UK university to open a campus in Cambodia, located in  Phnom Penh.

The most recent UK university branch campus to open is the collaborative campus between Lancaster University and Deakin University in Indonesia. Officially approved in January 2024, this campus represents a significant joint venture in TNE, the first overseas joint campus between UK and Australian universities, starting from September 2024.

No UK Branches in South Korea?

The strategy behind TNE expansions often includes enhancing global educational exchange, research collaborations, and increasing international academic mobility. Additionally, motivations such as global branding, revenue generation through student recruitment, and soft power diplomacy for long-term institutional strategies play a role. There are five international branch campuses in South Korea. However, none are from the UK, although the University of Southampton has reportedly signed a memorandum of understanding with the Incheon Metropolitan City Government to initiate discussions.

Media coverage on the conflict with South Korean authorities or the complete abandonment of plans for UK campuses is notable, in contrast to the presence of US campuses in South Korea, which started in 2012. This suggests substantial challenges for UK universities in establishing branch campuses in South Korea. Why have UK ventures struggled in South Korea?

Aberdeen’s Hadong Project

The University of Aberdeen’s attempt to establish a campus in Hadong, Gwangyang Free Economic Zone, is perhaps the most highly-cited case. Announced in 2015, the project aimed to open the UK’s first branch campus in South Korea, focusing on engineering subjects essential for the offshore oil and gas industry. Despite securing funding from South Korea’s Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Energy, the project faced delays due to financial and logistical issues, and the campus never opened as planned.

Despite the promising start and official support, the project encountered numerous setbacks. Financial and bureaucratic delays postponed the campus opening from its initial target of September 2016 to 2017. Further complications arose due to the global downturn in the oil and gas industry, leading to forecasted challenges in student recruitment and securing the necessary faculty. By 2018, after multiple delays and logistical hurdles, the University of Aberdeen decided to abandon the project altogether. Consequently, significant investments in infrastructure, such as a newly built dormitory worth £4.6 million, remained unused, leading to financial losses and legal disputes with local partners.

Lancaster’s Bid in Busan

Similarly, Lancaster University attempted to establish a presence in Busan. The project, which began in 2014, aimed to create a branch campus offering undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. In 2016, it embarked on a plan to establish a campus in the Myeongji International City in Busan, South Korea. This initiative was part of a broader effort by the Busan-Jinhae Free Economic Zone Authority to create a global education hub in the region. However, it was reported that Lancaster faced bureaucratic hurdles, including difficulties in meeting South Korean regulatory requirements.

Negotiations with Busan Metropolitan City and related government bodies extended for over a year, because the plans included substantial financial commitments, with Busan agreeing to support the project with up to £10 million over seven years to cover initial operational costs and ensure the university’s sustainability. However, as the opening date approached, concerns about the financial viability and strategic fit of the project began to surface. The changing educational environment and opposition from local universities added to the complications. By 2020, Busan decided to re-examine the feasibility of the campus, leading to the eventual abolition of the project.

Navigating a Saturated Market

The unsuccessful attempts by UK universities in the southern part of South Korea, underscore the importance of geographic location. The southern regions are heavily industrialised, with a strong focus on sectors like shipbuilding and manufacturing. However, these areas are also experiencing a growing polarisation of national resources, with a significant concentration of population and economic activities in the capital area, Seoul. Moreover, the demographic shift is driven by the declining young population, further exacerbating the regional imbalance. Consequently, campuses located away from Seoul struggle to attract and retain students and faculty, making it challenging to achieve long-term sustainability.

South Korea’s higher education market is saturated, with an oversupply of universities and colleges. This saturation is compounded by a declining college-going population due to the country’s low birth rates. With fewer students entering higher education, competition among institutions has intensified, making it difficult for new entrants, particularly foreign universities, to secure a significant market share. The education authorities and regional governments are likely be influenced by the local universities and communities which are potentially threatened by losing their recruitment pools. The competitive landscape requires UK universities to differentiate themselves through unique value propositions by offering programmes that are not widely available in South Korea, but South Korean universities have been strengthened significantly in the last two decades.

Lessons from Cautionary Tales

Aberdeen and Lancaster’s attempts serve as cautionary tales for other institutions considering similar ventures. Meticulous planning in TNE initiatives can still be challenged by the complexities and uncertainties involved in TNE operations, particularly in specialised fields subject to global economic fluctuations. It is unlikely that these failures stem from inadequate planning. UK universities boast the longest history of TNEs, seasoned with rich experience. However, the experiences of the two UK universities underscore the necessity for robust, adaptable strategies and extensive groundwork to address local conditions and unforeseen challenges effectively.

Understanding and navigating the stringent regulatory framework is crucial. Universities must engage with local authorities and stakeholders early in the planning process to ensure compliance and secure the necessary approvals. Institutions also need to be prepared for potential delays and economic fluctuations that could affect their projects. Legal and infrastructural preparedness is essential to avoid the pitfalls experienced by previous ventures. Sensitive issues, such as property rights and contractual disputes, including the repatriation of profit with local governments of free economic zone authorities, can hinder branch campus establishment. For instance, Aberdeen faced legal disputes related to unused infrastructure investments, potentially deterring similar initiatives in the future.

While the South Korean higher education market presents significant challenges for UK TNEs, it may still offer substantial opportunities for those willing to invest the necessary time, resources, and strategic thinking.

Kyuseok Kim, known professionally as KS, is a doctoral candidate in Educational Administration and Higher Education at Korea University. He holds a BA in English Language Education and an MBA from Sungkyunkwan University, and was selected as a Fulbright Scholar in 2012. Since 2010, KS has developed extensive expertise in strategic planning, student recruitment, international relations, and partnerships across both public and private sectors. He has held significant roles at UWAY Co., Ltd., M Square Media, SUNY Korea, and Sungkyunkwan University. KS is also an active scholar-practitioner, contributing numerous research papers and opinion pieces to respected international and South Korean publications. ks.kyuseok.kim@gmail.com  www.linkedin.com/in/ks-kim-intled