This new seminar series led by our member, Dr Hugo Horta is to bring:

  • Asian researchers based in Europe to present their research
  • European researchers coming to the forum to engage with Asian audiences and promote discussion on topics related to higher education and science policy
  • Asian researchers doing research about Europe and Asian-European relations
  • Build a community and further collaborations between European and Asian based researchers

Co-organizers: SCAPE, CHERA

What We've Have Done...

Marx and Marxist Theory in Researching Higher Education

Chair: Dr Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong

Speaker: Dr Krystian Szadkowski, Adam Mickiewicz University

Video

Abstract:

This paper aims to open a space for dialogue between Marxism and the field of higher education research. Its scope will be limited to Marxism and higher education research as they were developed in the West and the Anglophone debates. First, I will demonstrate to what extent Marx is present in the theoretical and methodological discussions within the HER field and examine the reasons behind his absence, i.e., the development of two perspectives regarding capitalist transformations, namely academic capitalism and exceptionalism. Second, I will introduce Marx’s method of critique, conceived as the integrity of the three different analytical moments: a) critique of political economy; b) analysis of the labour resistance; c) contouring the alternative to capitalism. I will explicate how these moments can be translated into the general integrative research program for higher education research. In discussing the research programme, I will emphasise the first moment: the role of the critique of the political economy of higher education. This paper aims to present the grounds for opening a dialogue between Marxism and contemporary mainstream HER.

Bio:

Krystian Szadkowski, PhD, is a researcher at the Scholarly Communication Research Group of Adam Mickiewicz University. His interests cover Marxist political economy and transformations of higher education systems in Central Eastern Europe and the issues of the public and the common in higher education. He worked as a researcher for Education International (Brussels, Belgium) and as a consultant in policy projects funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education.  He is currently working on the three book projects: Capital in Higher Education: A Critique of Political Economy of the Sector (forthcoming, Palgrave Macmillan), Critique as a Method in Higher Education Research. From Political Ontology to the Common (co-authored with Jakub Krzeski, forthcoming, Springer) and The Palgrave International Handbook of Marxism and Education (co-edited with Richard Hall and Inny Accioly).

Mixed Methods for Cross-country Comparative Higher Education and Science Research: Large-n in Small-n Integrated and Double Sequential Research Design

Chair: Dr Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong

Speakers: Dr Christian Schneijderberg, Nicolai Götze, International Center for Higher Education Research (INCHER), University of Kassel, Germany

Video

Abstract:

Large-n in small-n is an integrated and sequential mixed methods research design, which Schneijderberg and Götze (2021) constructed for cross-country comparative research. The large-n in small-n research design combines the advantages of a large-n, quantitative study (representativeness on the country level) with the advantage of small-n, in-depth understanding of case contexts provided by comparative case studies. We consider the mixed methods design to be applicable also for research beyond the social contexts of higher education and science.

The presentation will provide insights in the ongoing research pragmatic methodology development, which is supported by the “Academic Profession in Knowledge Society (APIKS)” research project. Schematically, the first step consists of the qualitative analysis in form of a thick description and interpretation of quantitative results (e.g., from a survey or data provided by statistical offices) from one country. The results provide the basis for the cross-comparative analysis (mixed methods sequence one). In step two, a purposive sampling based on a methodic and theoretical justification of country case selection (e.g., two, three or more cases for most similar or most different case studies) addresses the integration of large-n and small-n (mixed methods integration part one). This includes establishing a common understanding of country cases based on thick description and multi-variate analysis, the definition of data analysis strategy and, possibly, a systematic re-formulation of research question(s) and/or hypotheses. In step three (mixed methods sequence two), the integration (mixed methods part two) of large-n in small-n is done, ideally, by multi-national teams. The small-n understanding of cross-country similarities and differences should systematically analyze large-n descriptive and multi-variate results in light of theoretical approach and thick description of country cases, provide a translation of small-n understandings of cross-country similarities and differences for international audiences, and critically reflect the particular contribution to cosmopolitan knowledge.

Schneijderberg, C., & Götze, N. (2021). Academics’ Societal Engagement in Cross-country Perspective: Large n in Small n Comparative Case Studies. Higher Education Policy 34(1), https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-021-00227-z.

On (In)Visibility of Doctoral Researchers and Reframing the Doctorate for the 21st Century

Chair: Dr Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong

Speaker: Prof Rosemary Deem, Emerita Professor of Higher Education Management and Doctoral School Senior Research Fellow, Royal Holloway University of London

Video

Abstract:

The presentation will explore, using recent literature, how doctoral education is currently positioned, in relation to changes in academic work and recent critiques of the doctorate (Cardoso et al., 2020 ; Whittington & Barnes, 2021). The discussion focuses on Europe in order to lend some specificity to the argument but has relevance for other HE systems as well. Two research questions, one about doctoral researcher visibility/invisibility and the other concerning how holistic rather than piecemeal changes to doctoral education might be approached, are posed. The paper first considers the extent to which doctoral researchers are rendered invisible in their universities and what the negative and positive consequences of this are for doctoral candidates. A conceptual framework for examining invisible paid or unpaid work, drawing on Hatton’s (2017) research about invisible paid work and disadvantage, is used to shape this discussion. The same framework is used to discuss recent critiques of the doctorate and changes to academic work and how the latter might reshape doctoral education. Finally, the paper examines a possible holistic reframing of the doctorate, drawing on work by Morley (2013), exploring how doctoral candidates, universities as organisations and the knowledge that feeds into doctoral theses, could all be changed for the benefit of all concerned.

References:

Cardoso, S., Tavares, O., Sin, C., & Carvalho, T. (Eds.). (2020). Structural and Institutional Transformations in doctoral education: social, political and student expectations Palgrave Macmillan/Springer Nature.

Hatton, E. (2017 ). Mechanisms of invisibility: rethinking the concept of invisible work. Work, Employment and Society 31(2), 336–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017016674894

Morley, L. (2013). Women and Higher Education Leadership: Absences and Aspirations. Leadership Foundation, London

Whittington, K., & Barnes, S. (2021). The Changing Face of Doctoral Education. In R. Bongaart & A. Lee (Eds.), The Future of Doctoral Education (pp. 5-17). Routledge

Should the More Highly Educated Get More Votes? Education, Voting and Representation

Chair: Dr Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong

Speaker: Prof Malcolm Tight, Lancaster University

Video

Abstract

This seminar re-examines an old issue – the relation between education, voting and representation – but one which has attracted little attention in educational circles in recent years. In the past it attracted the attention of great thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Newman and Mill. In the UK there is a practical precedent, rarely recalled today, where for centuries the universities had their own representatives in parliament. There are also some interesting contemporary arguments on the topic put forward in favour of an epistocracy (as some call it) by social scientists, but it seems that most would not now dare to suggest that the more highly educated might be given more votes, largely on the grounds of equity.

Non-academic Funders and Successful Exit from Academia: A good Way to Be a Post-doc

Chair: Dr Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong

Speaker: Dr Giulio Marini, University College London

Video

Abstract

In high-income countries in recent years, the non-academic labour market destination of PhD-holders, i.e., the segmentation by industry sector of destination, has emerged as an issue. Universities and other research-intensive institutions can no longer absorb the major share of PhD-holders. Their employment has become a matter of segmentation both horizontally in terms of the economy and vertically in terms of income. The article reports on outcomes from analysis that tested what factors segment labour market outcomes in two dimensions: (1) the economic sector and (2) income. Findings suggest that scientific mobility and type of funding during PhD studies do not play a notable role. Instead, some types of experiences such as a postdoctoral research position, predict exit from academic employment and also a higher income overall. The most significant experiences that contribute to segmentation are in fact projects funded by private companies or international organisations in postdoctoral periods. Implications for policy making are relevant for both PhD-holders, universities and external organisations. For instance, maximising collaborations between non-academic employers and universities is likely to produce beneficial outcomes for PhD-holders.

Chair: Dr Hugo Horta, The University of Hong Kong

Speaker:  Prof Gaële Goastellec, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Video

Citizenship and Higher Education: Rethinking Access in the Longue Durée 

Abstract

A large body of research on higher education questions the social characteristics of students and the determinants of access. Sociologists and historians alike have documented differential access according to social, economic, ethnic or geographical background, as well as gender (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1964, 1970; Boudon, 1973; Anderson, 2004; Arum et al, 2007; Julia & Revel, 1989, etc.). However, little research questions the relationship between higher education and citizenship, and when it does, it is mainly on how higher education could contribute to citizenship education (Zgaga, 2009; Horey et al, 2018; Cheng & Holton, 2018; Fernandez, 2005, etc.). How citizenship affects access opportunities and vice versa has been little discussed, although, as we will show using a European perspective, it represents a historical and widely shared driver of access organisation.

The concept of citizenship, understood in a broad sense, defines what binds an individual, his rights and duties, to a political territory. It is disconnected from the type of political regime in place: citizenship ‘can exist without democracy: (…) the rights and duties associated with the status of citizen can be decided and attributed by those who govern (…)’ (Bickel, 2007: 12).

Therefore, ‘not all regimes of rights and citizenship are similar and not all are national’ (Burbank & Cooper, 2008), and citizenship is not only associated with modern states (Magnette, 2001). Therefore, the concept of citizenship comprises ‘multiple meanings (…)’ (Bickel, 2007, pp. 12-14), ‘concentrates a complex stratification of multiple meanings going back to different historical periods’ (Koselleck, 1979/1990, p. 109) and is variously associated with different social affiliations over time.

What can we learn by interrogating access to university through the lens of citizenship? We argue that the instrumentation of access relies on a grammar of citizenship that is both linked to social stratification and to the framing of geographical circulations.

In order to document this, based on a socio-historical work on the history of access to universities in Europe (Goastellec, 2020), this presentation will recall how the rights and duties of university members were the very first issue of negotiations between the university and the authority. A second part will document the dynamics that circumscribe the categories of citizens with access rights and the reciprocal effect of studies on access to citizenship. A third part will focus on the interactions between student circulation and political citizenship. Finally, in the fourth part we will contrast the diffusion of a so-called universal citizenship with the permanence of a differentiation of citizenship. The conclusion, based on a synthesis of the identified processes, will problematise how such research offers the opportunity to adopt a ‘relational stance’: by identifying the connections between the different territories and scales articulated in the instruments of access, we will highlight the contribution of the articulation of access and citizenship to the global historical development (Go & Lawson, 2017).

References

  • Anderson, R. D. (2004). European universities from the Enlightenment to 1914. Oxford Scholarship Online.
  • Arum, R., Gamoran, A., & Shavit, Y. (2007). More inclusion than diversion: Expansion, differentiation, and market structure in higher education. In Y. Shavit, R. Arum, & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Stratification in higher education, A comparative study (pp. 1–38). Stanford University Press.
  • Bickel, Jean-François. 2007. « Significations, histoire et renouvellement de la citoyenneté ». Gérontologie et société, vol. 30 / 120, (1), 11-28.
  • Boudon, Raymond. 1973. L’inégalité des chances, la mobilité sociale dans les sociétés industrielles. Paris, Colin.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre et Jean-Claude Passeron. 1964. Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture. Paris, Éditions de Minuit.
  • Bourdieu, Pierre et Jean-Claude Passeron. 1970. La reproduction. Éléments pour une théorie du système d’enseignement. Paris. Éditions de Minuit.
  • Burbank, Jane et Frederick Cooper. 2008. « Empire, droits et citoyenneté ». Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 63(3), 495-531.
  • Cheng, Y., & Holton, M. (2018). Geographies of citizenship in higher education: An introduction. AREA , 51 (4), 613–617.
  • Fernandez, Ó. (2005). Towards European citizenship through higher education? European Journal of Education , 40 (1), 59–68.
  • Goastellec, Gaële. (2019). « L’accès à l’enseignement supérieur enjeu de l’organisation sociale : quelques apports de la comparaison socio-historique ». SociologieS. https://journals.openedition.org/sociologies/12152
  • Goastellec, G. (2020). Production de l’université, production de la société. Sociologie de l’accès à l’université depuis le moyen âge [Habilitation à Diriger les Recherches]. Institut d’Étude Politique de Paris.
  • Goastellec, G., (2021) Citizenship and Access to Higher Education: the missing piece. In Eggins H., Smolenseva, A., De Wits H., Higher Education: the next decade, Brill.
  • Go, J., & Lawson, G. (2017). Global historical sociology. Cambridge University Press.
  • Horey, D., Fortune, T., Nicolacopoulos, T., Kashima, E., & Mathisen, B. (2018). Global citizenship and higher education: A scoping review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Studies in International Education , 22 (5), 472–492.
  • Koselleck, R. (1990). Le futur passé. Contribution à la sémantique des temps historiques. Editions de l’EHESS. (Original work published 1979)
  • Magnette, P. (2001). La citoyenneté : Une histoire de l’idée de participation civique. Bruylant.
  • Zgaga, P. (2009). Higher education and citizenship: “The full range of purposes.” European
  • Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 175–188.

Bio

Gaële Goastellec is a sociologist. Her main research interests lie in the relationship between education and social organizations, analyzed through the socio-historical comparison of higher education systems and institutions. A first stream of research deals with access to Higher Education (from Middle Ages to Contemporary Europe and on a global scale for the 20th century), with a special concern for social belongings’ categorization and its translation into admission policies. Her most recent research focus on exiles opportunities to access HE depending on national administrative categorizations of refugees. A second line of research analyzes academic careers (also through international comparisons) and HE organizations.

Professor (MER) at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, she is the director of the Observatory Science, Policy and Society (OSPS). Current vice-President of the AISLF research committee on International Comparisons, elected member of the Academia Europaea, she has previously been a Lavoisier Fellow (2004-2005) and a Fulbright New Century Scholar fellow (2005-2006).

Amongst her last publications, Kamanzi C., Goastellec G., Pelletier L,, (2021). Mass University and Social Inclusion: the Paradoxical role of Public Policies. Social Inclusion, vol.9, N°3, pp.32-43. https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/4165; Goastellec, G., (2021) Citizenship and Access to Higher Education: the missing piece. In Eggins H., Smolenseva, A., De Wits H., Higher Education: the next decade, Brill; with Jussi Välimaa (Eds), 2019, Inequalities in Access to Higher Education: Methodological and Theoretical Issues, Social Inclusion, Vol7, N°1, .  https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/issue/view/101 ; with Marie-Agnès Détourbe (2018), « Revisiting the issues of access to Higher Education and social stratification through the case of refugees: a comparative study of spaces of opportunity for refugee students in Germany and England” », Social Sciences, vol7(186)https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/10/186.

Chair: Dr Jisun Jung, The University of Hong Kong

Speaker: Dr Miguel Antonio Lim, The University of Manchester

Video

The Geopolitics of Transnational Higher Education Partnerships: ‘Equal’ Partnerships in Chinese HE

Abstract:

This presentation discusses the evolution of governance of transnational higher education (TNHE) partnerships and reviews the purposes of these partnerships. By focusing on the case of Sino-foreign educational partnerships, it will outline TNHE as a part of ‘national‘ development strategies. In China, and other countries, TNHE partnerships are seen as an important part of the drive to build ‘World Class Universities’. China’s case shows an increasing orientation towards quality over quantity of partnerships and a growing role for geopolitics in the choice of its universities’ HE partners.   

Bio:

Miguel is a specialist in research and policy issues in international and transnational higher education. His research focuses on the challenges facing universities and national higher education systems in relation to internationalisation.  

He is originally from the Philippines and has worked in a variety of countries and roles in the higher education sector. His academic formation includes degrees in economics (University of the Philippines), public affairs (Sciences Po-Paris), public and economic policy (the London School of Economics) and education (Aarhus University Denmark). 

He has also worked in higher education administration as well as teaching and research. Previously, he worked on international partnerships for Sciences Po-Paris at their Asia Pacific Center and was the Executive Director of the Global Public Policy Network Secretariat.