Search results

This chapter tries to explain the impact of the European Commission's ERASMUS programme on national higher education policies of 18 European countries. Based on an analysis of the literature on Europeanisation and policy impact, it is hypothesised that the impact will be very modest, but that there may be indirect impacts and differences in impact across countries dependent on institutional features of the higher education system. The empirical findings support the hypothesis: ERASMUS certainly has increased policy-makers’ awareness of the importance and possible consequences of further internationalisation. Nevertheless, ERASMUS has a more profound effect on higher education institutions and students. In addition, policy-makers have been much more influenced regarding their internationalisation policies by the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations. There are some noteworthy differences between the countries that relate to specific domestic characteristics (e.g. language and colonial history).

This chapter analyzes the behavior of early adopters of innovations and followers in the Dutch university sector from 1974–1993. The innovations we concentrate on are (comparable) new study programs. We formulate contrasting expectations bearing on institutional and strategic choice theory concerning the consequences for early adopters versus followers. From an institutional perspective we predict that followers are less successful measured in terms of the quality of the program, the enrollments, and fundamental changes in the program (including closing down the program). Seven chains of innovations (in total 35 new programs) are analyzed. This analysis points out that the behavior of the adopters can be seen as a combination of both strategic choice and institutional adjustment.

Formative assessment is of critical concern within higher education, particularly as ‘feedback’ remains a recurring source of student dissatisfaction. In contemporary times, the need to decolonise higher education emerged first in post-colonial contexts of the global south, before becoming a more general debate in contexts which historically were at the heart of empire. Literatures on formative assessment and decolonisation have, however, remained discrete and disconnected. This chapter first makes the connection between decolonisation and assessment, highlighting the need to question dominant (modern) understandings of assessment as ‘objective’ measurement. It then suggests potentially helpful strands in assessment and wider literature to re-imagine formative assessment practices that might support decolonisation agendas, discussing this with reference to the authors' previous research. It closes by suggesting some modest ways forward that more openly acknowledge the problematics of assessment as a social practice, as well as the need for further research.

There is an identified need in higher education research for methods which have the capacity to generate conceptual insights grounded in concrete local practice but with wider applicability in understanding and facilitating research-based change. This chapter outlines an intermediate approach to qualitative data analysis which can support theoretical knowledge advancement from practice-based research, which I call the difference-within-similarity approach. It involves a particular way of conducting dialogues with our data: of interanimating similarities and differences within our qualitative datasets. The approach outlined involves first identifying a similarity, then systematically examining differences within that similarity to generate theoretical explanations. Drawing on sociocultural theorising, particularly dialogic theory and cultural–historical activity theory, the approach is based on the idea that new meanings arise from a comparison of multiple perspectives on the ‘same’ phenomenon. The tensions between such perspectives are seen as a key driver for change in educational practice. Therefore, articulating and examining such tensions in our data gives an opportunity to simulate the possibility of change in our analysis and, hence, develop insights which can inform change beyond local settings. Important here is that the differences examined are bound together by an analytically productive similarity. Through multiple research examples, the chapter identifies and illustrates a range of ways of articulating productive analytical similarities for comparison in our data: through theory/literature, through forward and backwards processing of data itself and through a process termed ‘weaving’.

Building on the proposition that Bernstein's ideas are due for a revival in higher education research, the call for studies in which theory is put to use and for policy studies to engage in textual analysis, this chapter argues for the affordances of the theoretical underpinnings of Bernstein's pedagogic device and critical discourse studies in investigating connections between policy and practice. Drawing on the sociology of pedagogy and applied linguistics, this chapter aims to explore the theoretical complementarities of the chosen approaches for exploring how policy ideas move through time and space. A focus on the notion of recontextualisation enables an understanding of how influences beyond the discipline itself, including policy discourses, can shape learning, teaching and assessment practices. The illustrating case examines policy on learning and teaching and how these ideas are recontextualised from national policy through to institutional policy and individual practices. The critical or questioning angle of both approaches in seeing ideas, including policy, as never value-free but as situated within their sociopolitical context can shed light on how policy ideas make their way into universities and in whose interests.

The use of thematic analysis (TA) as a qualitative analytical technique is gaining traction in higher education research. This is a positive development, since TA has a lot to offer in terms of enhancing scholars' analytical prowess. However, its usage in higher education as a field of study appears at times to be inaccurate. In other cases, methodological steps remain unclear, if not completely obscured, making it difficult for a reader to understand how this method should be conducted and/or how specific results/findings have been achieved. Also, researchers have widely embraced a variation of TA that emerged in the last decade and a half, neglecting the original, rigorous method put forward by Boyatzis in the late 1990s. This contribution takes a critical look at the current use of TA in higher education research. It highlights current issues in its application, presents and constructively criticizes the most employed approach to TA in higher education, and proposes greater consideration for TA's original specification and procedural guidelines.

This chapter considers the values and challenges of a highly embedded participant ethnographic methodology that has evolved over the last four years in the course of two formal ethnographic studies in higher education. The method has been developed by a practitioner-researcher in tandem with the learning design of a new programme. As such, the roots of the method lie very much within the paradigms of heuristics and action research but lend themselves equally well to more formal, extended ethnographic work. The nature of this method raises several interesting, messy and difficult issues that are further explored. The first is the nature of practitioner research and the purpose of participant ethnography in this context. What does it mean for the teacher to concurrently and contemporaneously inhabit the role of researcher? This leads neatly into an exploration of the attendant ethical considerations. Issues of power and positionality must be tackled, and the ability of the researcher to engage in fully reflexive practice and research is key to unpacking this. Who or what is being observed, and from what perspective? Whose experience is really being interrogated – that of the teacher or the student? Finally, as this method has evolved from, and shares much in common with, action research, consideration will be given to the nexus of action research, observation and formal ethnography – both in terms of the participation and contributions of the teacher-researcher to the process and the students, who in effect become auto-action researchers, investigating themselves as learners and their experiences with their peers.

Higher education research has substantially expanded in recent years, to become a subject worthy of study in its own right. Higher education journals are arguably the most important location for the publication of the outputs of such research. This paper examines the articles published in 14 leading higher education journals internationally in the years 2000, 2010 and 2020. It compares the volume of outputs, the themes addressed, the methodologies employed, the theories applied, the levels at which analyses were undertaken, and the characteristics of the first authors involved. It concludes that the field of higher education research is growing and that its reach is increasingly global.