Epistemic governance and epistemic innovation policy in higher education

In the following, we present a comprehensive analysis of governance of and in higher education that is based largely on a literature review, thus representing publicly accessible knowledge. We address and cover key publications on these topics, which were released in recent years. This also defines our first research question. Our second research question, however, is in analytical terms already more specific. We apply the concept of “epistemic governance” to higher education and elaborate in more detail what epistemic governance may mean for the governance of and in higher education (currently and in the future). Epistemic governance refers to the epistemic structure and “knowledge paradigms” that underlie higher education. We compare epistemic governance with the reviewed literature on higher education governance. After a definition of two key terms (governance and higher education) in Chap. 2, our analysis engages broadly in a reviewing and discussion of different concepts of governance of and in higher education (Chap. 3), and compares this with epistemic governance wherever necessary and appropriate. Epistemic governance as such we discuss and present in Sect. 3.2.2. In Conclusion, we then focus on possible implications of epistemic governance for the academic profession (academic faculty) and their academic careers.

Campbell, D. F. J. and Carayannis, E. G. (2013). Epistemic Governance in Higher Education: Quality Enhancement of Universities for Development. New York, NY: Springer. Pages: 79. $39.95 US (paper). ISBN 978-1-4614- 4417-6.A major question in study of in higher education is how narrowly or broadly to define term Most of those who have addressed this question would agree that defining only in terms of activities of formally consti- tuted bodies with statutory decision-making authority, such as governing boards and aca- demic senates, is too limiting. However, at other extreme, definitions that include all interactions among all members and stakeholders of an institution may be unmanageably broad. Besides deciding which parties and processes to include in definition, there is also question of whether to include some aspects of context of in def- inition, for example, legal and cultural framework in which takes place, and shared assumptions and values that underlie in particular places.David Campbell, of University of Klagenfurt in Austria, and Elias Carayannis, of George Washington University, argue that knowledge paradigms and understandings pertaining to structure of knowledge are so important to having good, effective, and that they should be included in definition of governance. The resulting definition, which authors term governance is said to refer to the epistemic structure and knowledge paradigms that underlie higher education. Campbell and Carayannis assert that approaching in this broadened perspective is par- ticularly important when dealing with quality management, which they regard as one of most crucial responsibilities for higher education governance.In explaining what they mean by epistemic governance, authors employ what I would describe as somewhat circumscribed conception of the epistemic structure and knowledge paradigms that underlie higher education. Their focus is on relationship between research and innovation, and more particularly concept of modes of pro- duction of knowledge as originally formulated by Gibbons et al. (1994). In this frame- work, Mode 1 refers to knowledge production that is investigator-driven and grows out of interest in discipline, while Mode 2 knowledge production is application-focused, context-driven, and interdisciplinary. Mode 1 knowledge production tends to consist of ongoing work of basic research, but Mode 2 may involve shorter term associations of researchers and practitioners who come together to solve specific problem. Build- ing on literature on Modes 1 and 2, authors add Mode 3, which is blend of other two modes. Mode 3 involves combining in creative and sustainable format different knowledge productions of other two modes (pp. 64--66). In their Mode 3, which authors have described in more detail in other publications (e.g., Carayannis & Campbell, 2012), there is an inclination for basic research in context of application.The different modes of knowledge production have different implications for such fac- ets of academy as organization of faculty work, relationship between uni- versity and society, and quality assurance. The authors are particularly concerned with implications of latter area, and they offer valuable insights in that regard. For example, they note that while placing primary reliance on peer review by disciplinary experts may be appropriate for Mode 1 knowledge production, this approach is inappro- priate for evaluation of Mode 2 knowledge production. The authors argue that proper quality assurance procedures for Mode 2 should include users as well as producers of knowledge, and should give considerable weight to outcomes and impacts of research. Employing an approach to quality assurance that gives disciplinary-based, peer review a gate-keeping function would penalize those involved in Mode 2 and Mode 3 knowledge production and consequently inhibit potential contributions of higher education to inno- vation. …

Higher Education in Pakistan - Problems and Prospects in Post 18th Amendment

Why and how does the use of large language models (LLMs) transform epistemic agency and epistemic governance in higher education (HE), and why can this transformation usher organized immaturity as a new organizing principle for HE? Asking these questions now matters because (i) the profound impact of LLMs on epistemic agency and governance in HE has not been adequately scrutinized by theorists of organizations and HE to date and (ii) LLMs represent an epistemic technology that fundamentally alters who produces knowledge, how knowledge is produced (through research), disseminated (through education), and what kind of knowledge is produced. This lack of scrutiny leaves us ill-equipped to understand why and how LLMs transform (via the activities of Big EdTech first, and institutional responses second) epistemic agency and epistemic governance in HE. Two aims follow from this broader concern. First, we interrogate how ‘epistemic agency’ undergoes transformation as more HE institutions (and related parties) adopt and legitimatize LLMs in research and education in ways that rewrites the rules concerning epistemic governance in favour of Big EdTech. In this process, epistemic agents transform into epistemic consumers over time. Building on this, our second aim is to show why the aforementioned transformation can usher in organized immaturity as a new organizing principle for HE. This development undermines the Humboldtian ideal of HE as a progressive cultural project of integrating research and education within a broader normative foundation of academic freedom. This ideal also emphasizes the intellectual development of reason and ‘holistic knowledge’ to enable social deliberation essential to the development and maintenance of democracies. We discuss the theoretical ramifications of our analysis, suggest avenues for future research, and offer an agenda for immediate corrective action to enlarge our control over epistemic agency and governance in HE.

Big data has become an important tool to promote the transformation of higher education governance. In internal mechanism, the governance of higher education empowered by big data can continuously optimize the governance structure of higher education, enrich the governance subjects of higher education, expand the boundaries of higher education governance and update the governance rules of higher education. In terms of value logic, the governance of higher education with big data empowerment is mainly reflected in shaping data thinking, reconstructing value cognition, surpassing technical rationality and realizing characteristic development. At present, the governance of big data empowerment higher education mainly has practical difficulties, such as lack of institutional guarantee for data application, weak research ability of data technology, information risk in data based governance and technological governance ignoring the needs of the subject. In the future, the governance of big data empowerment higher education needs to further standardize data governance and improve the modern university system with Chinese characteristics. Mining data value to stimulate the internal power of higher education governance; Based on the whole data, realize the collaborative governance of higher education; In-depth interpretation of data, highlighting the people-oriented value orientation.

PurposeThis study analyzed Chinese higher education (HE) governance policies during the first four months of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, providing insight into HE management, policymaking and governance. This study also illuminates Chinese student experiences and real-time policy impact, providing insight into the effectiveness of HE crisis management.Design/methodology/approachUsing frameworks of real-time policy evaluation, this paper analyzed theoretical and realized policy impacts through the theoretical framing of temporality. Using real-time evaluation methods, this paper first identified HE policy priorities and then used a mixed-methods approach of “policy as discourse” analysis and a quantitative survey from Chinese HE students to assess the theoretical and realized impact of policies.FindingsAn analysis of HE policies identified three priorities: pastoral care, graduate employment and ideological education. Discourse analysis revealed each priority of HE policies was intrinsically linked to mitigating societal, economic and political consequences of the epidemic. Survey data revealed the perceived effectiveness of policies mirrored China's top-down government structure. Additionally, students expressed strong support in the central government's crisis management, despite relatively little realized policy impact.Originality/valueThis paper presents a timely review of HE governance during a global pandemic by offering a snapshot of HE crisis management and contributing to the literature surrounding China's ongoing HE centralization. This paper also provides unique insight into HE's role in state development, variations between prescriptive and realized policy impact and the “crisis as opportunity” paradox in a contemporary setting.

The COVID-19 epidemic has affected higher education worldwide, more so in developing societies. While several studies have looked at the impact of this pandemic on higher education, evidence on the changing policies and practices of managing higher education in a global crisis is still sparse. We present an analysis of how the higher education sector was managed at the system (national/state) institutional and individual levels during the pandemic in India. Drawing on the notion of federalism, we examine the process of decision-making and policy implementation during the crisis and its long-term implications on the governance of higher education. We use student and teacher survey data and critical review of documents by the government and regulatory bodies of higher education, at national and state levels, in our analysis. We find that students have faced the issues like a lack of peer group interactions, unavailability of study materials and lack of regular interaction with teachers that often helps them in performing better while in colleges and universities. Teachers, particularly from private higher education institutions, suffered immense economic distress due to undue delay in receipt of salaries, salary cuts or retrenchment. More importantly, responses to the pandemic-led challenges for higher education by regulatory and coordinating bodies are seldom based on assessing the challenges students and teachers face. It is argued that federalism in education has been substantially weakened as the pandemic response followed a centralised and unilateral approach of decision-making. The article concludes with the short-term and long-term implications of the pandemic-led crisis on the higher education sector in India, adds to the growing literature on the issue.

The topic of governance is much discussed in the higher education literature. Corruption is less discussed, and mostly in general and cautionary terms. Yet there are important relations between the two. The current article critically examines the literature on governance in higher education and underlines the relationship to forms of corruption in the field. While much literature on corruption in education outlines regulatory practices, or Codes of Practice to limit its reach, the current analysis both reviews types of corruption in higher education, and illustrates them with actual examples from several systems of higher education in East and South East Asia. While corrupt practices in higher education are by no means unique to the region, (indeed examples can be found worldwide, in virtually every system), most rank poorly on conventional measures of transparency. The article advances our understanding of the complex and dynamic relationship between corruption and governance in higher education, in what is arguably the most dynamic world region.

Reviewed by: Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education by William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin Karena Brace, Director of Program Operations William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin. Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. 400 pp. Hardcover: $29.95. ISBN 978-0-691-16642-1. William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin tackle the “we” versus “they” mindset in higher education as they make the case for changes to governance in Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Roles in the Governance of Higher Education. Bowen is the former president of Princeton University and President Emeritus of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Tobin, former president of Hamilton College, is the senior program officer for Higher Education and Scholarship in the Humanities at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Both authors began their careers in academe as faculty members, Bowen in economics and Tobin in American history. As a result, they bring a well-rounded perspective on higher education and first-hand knowledge of the challenges faced by faculty and administrators. The book gains credence from their respective expertise, with four case studies providing historical accounts and supporting evidence for their conclusions. At the heart of their argument is whether an “inherited,” “hundred-year-old system of governance practices” can support the changing demands for higher education (p. 1; p. 64). Bowen and Tobin contend that higher education institutions, marked by increased specialization among faculty, professionalization of administration, and perpetual predispositions toward vertical organization, cannot respond appropriately or in a timely fashion to current issues. They suggest movement toward more horizontal organizational structures that drive collaborative practices. However, the authors are quick to caution that it is not collaborative decision-making or consensus they seek. Rather, it is meaningful participation from all campus constituents, true leadership with the courage to act, while assuming the best from all involved. Despite the book’s title, Bowen and Tobin readily acknowledge, “this study is really about leadership and how it is both constrained and exercised in the modern college or university” (p. x). Consequently, this book serves as a critical resource for understanding the historical influences on current issues in governance of higher education and how administrators might begin to address their role and the role of faculty in decision-making. Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Roles in the Governance of Higher Education is composed of five chapters with the Introduction serving as Chapter 1. In it, Bowen and Tobin set the stage for the chapters to come by painting a rather urgent need for change in governance structures. As degree attainment levels, particularly among minorities, fall short of expectations, degree completion time increases, and widespread issues of affordability plague higher education, Bowen and Tobin plead with readers to take heed. They question the governance structures currently in place at American institutions, critical of their slow pace, lack of concern for appropriate resource allocation, and occupation with preservation of the status quo. Bowen and Tobin call for an evolution in governance so that American institutions can uphold the social mobility promised by higher education, graduating students who can compete globally. Another critical component of the introduction is an explanation of the book’s structure. Setting this book apart is the use of four case studies that detail milestone events in governance and evolution of faculty roles from the beginnings of the institutions through current events still unfolding. Representing the groups studied are the City University of New York (CUNY), Macalester College, Princeton University, and University of [End Page 156] California. The selection of these institutions is intended to give readers a varied set of institutional cultures, leadership styles, and events that shaped the future of higher education. However, it is noteworthy to acknowledge the professional ties that Bowen holds with Princeton University. The cases are incorporated throughout the remaining four chapters with the full cases provided at the end of the book. Bowen and Tobin ask that readers “resist any temptation they may have to ‘skip to the end,’” encouraging readers to engage in exploration of the studies, citing their importance in framing...

Cet article examine a quel point l'enseignement superieur a Hong-Kong et a Singapour a ete affecte par un aspect de la mondialisation, la force du managerialisme, en particulier dans les mecanismes et systemes de direction et de gestion qu'ont adoptes la City University of Hong-Kong et la National University of Singapore en reponse a une vague mondiale d'assurance de la qualite.

Forms of institutional governance critically shape the culture, creativity and academic outcomes of higher education. The book provides a new, updated and research based account of the changing face of the governance of British higher education. Historically, British universities were deemed amongst the most, if not the most, autonomous in Europe, with governance rooted in their collegial disciplinary structures. This assessment must now be decisively revised, although the belief systems deriving from it remain buried deep in university culture. Drawing on the authors' investigation of the governance of higher education in the four UK nations, including extensive on-site interviews, and discussions with government policy-makers, the book shows how global, national and system level pressures have changed the face both of the external governance of higher education institutions and how universities govern themselves. Government priorities, new funding methodologies and marketisation have all played a part in this process. Since the mid-1980s, there have been drastic changes in the external environment, reinforced by the increasing diversity within the higher education system as a whole and between the national sub-systems. In addition a new private sector of higher education has been created. New forms of institutional governance are emerging which may have profound effects on research and teaching and on academic creativity and innovation. The study discusses the effects of a state regulated system compared with the more heterarchical system which preceded it. It offers a comparison of the effects of devolved governance to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the respective higher education systems and their impact on institutional governance. The study concludes that England is becoming increasingly an outlier, and discusses the long term implications for the coherence of a British higher education system.

This study conducted text network analysis on 1,233 papers published in the Journal of Higher Education Management, a core Journal of Chinese Higher Education during 2012~2025, in order to grasp the research trend of China's Higher Education. The main analysis results are as follows. First, 'base, construction, teaching, path, innovation, college students, strategy, evaluation, system, impact, training, and quality' appeared with high frequency. It reveals that research on higher education has mainly focused on university and regional innovation, development strategy search, evaluation of various institutions and higher education institutions, undergraduate and graduate student talent training, higher education quality management, governance establishment, and internationalization of higher education. Second, the word with the highest degree centrality was 'evaluation', followed by 'governance, innovation, model, nurture, construction, logic, strategy, management, mechanism'. This suggests that studies on higher education in China are focusing on finding ways to strengthen accountability at the national level. Third, a total of 4 clusters were derived through cluster analysis. This can be summarized as contents related to systematization of higher vocational education and training of human resources, innovation of higher education governance structure and search for institutional operation strategies, improvement of higher education quality through evaluation innovation, diagnosis of higher education policy problems, and search for mechanisms. Finally, based on the results of the analysis of trends in Chinese higher education research, similarities and differences with Korean higher education research were compared and historical points were presented.

Governance in higher education includes processes, structures, long-term leadership, and policies used to direct, manage, and supervise operational activities. The increasing demand from stakeholders to voice concerns about sustainability governance has become a challenge to gain trust as an institution responsible for policies and strategic decisions in accordance with applicable ethics and regulations. This research aims to determine the extent of online information disclosure about sustainability governance practices in the context of Legal-Entity Higher Education in Indonesia. The method used is qualitative research with content analysis. The GRI-G4 indicators for the General Standard category are used as an assessment of governance performance. The results of the study indicate that indicators of governance, organizational profile, ethics, and integrity are information that is quite highly disclosed. This is because disclosures such as profiles, strategies, and governance structures are commonplace in reports published by universities. Disclosure of governance performance shows their commitment to transparency and ensures that decisions taken are aligned with sustainable principles. The absence of a specific assessment instrument to assess governance in the higher education sector is a research limitation because GRI-G4 tends to be used to assess practices in the business sector.

This paper explores how higher education governance and macro-level (governmental) language policy and planning (LPP) impact (a) the growth and (b) sustainability of English-medium instruction (EMI) programmes in the Turkish higher education context, an Expanding Circle country (Kachru, 1985). We examine higher education policy documents and regulations and interview elite participants (N = 20), i.e. higher education administrative and governance staff who play significant roles in the decision-making processes of the universities. We make innovative use of a Process Tracing methodology to provide a broader perspective on the growth of EMI. We also examine the impact of macro-level LPP on the regulation and sustainability of EMI programmes. Regarding the growth of EMI programmes in Turkiye, we identify three significant milestones, namely the foundation of the Council of Higher Education, massification, and privatisation. While sustaining the quality and quantity of EMI programmes, higher education actors also implement some language policies. By employing Process Tracing, this study goes beyond simply identifying the relationship between policies and their impact: it sheds light on the causal mechanisms at play, revealing how adopting a ‘steering at a distance’ approach can have unintended consequences that fuel the growth of EMI programmes.

Higher education governance and policy. Higher education governance and policy. Higher education governance and policy.