Search results

The purpose of this article is to develop a conceptual framework that sets out the linkages that exist between digitalisation and active labour market policies (ALMPs).

Based on a narrative literature review, this article seeks to connect two research streams, namely that relating to ALMPs and that relating to digitalisation in the public sector. This exercise requires an understanding of both how the context of digitalisation in the public sector has evolved in relation to technological change and the identification of specific ALMPs that are more sensitive to digitalisation.

Starting from the identification of ideal-types of ALMPs, “employment assistance” can be considered the type of policies most sensitive to digitalisation, looking at main forms of interventions as career guidance, profiling and job-matching tools. The first tool is closer to a technological domain of “remotisation”, while the second is closer to that of “automatisation”.

Achieving an understanding of the different degrees of sensitivity to digitalisation for various types of ALMPs is relevant for policy-making purposes to identify potential priority areas of strategic investment to enhance this sector.

The authors present an understanding of the current state of the digitalisation of public employment services. The literature review itself allowed the authors to conclude that, despite the interests in the public and academic debate, the existing research relating to the digitalisation of public employment services remains scant. At the same time, the article points towards fertile areas for further analysis.

Collegiality is the modus operandi of universities. Collegiality is central to academic freedom and scientific quality. In this way, collegiality also contributes to the good functioning of universities’ contribution to society and democracy. In this concluding paper of the special issue on collegiality, we summarize the main findings and takeaways from our collective studies. We summarize the main challenges and contestations to collegiality and to universities, but also document lines of resistance, activation, and maintenance. We depict varieties of collegiality and conclude by emphasizing that future research needs to be based on an appreciation of this variation. We argue that it is essential to incorporate such a variation-sensitive perspective into discussions on academic freedom and scientific quality and highlight themes surfaced by the different studies that remain under-explored in extant literature: institutional trust, field-level studies of collegiality, and collegiality and communication. Finally, we offer some remarks on methodological and theoretical implications of this research and conclude by summarizing our research agenda in a list of themes.