The illusion of academic freedom and the promise of the undercommons.

The research titled “The State of Knowledge in Social Studies Research in Thailand: Past and Future Trends” aims to investigate historical foundations, assess current status, and synthesize the body of knowledge to determine future directions for social studies research. The scope of the study covers the period from 1960 to 2024. A qualitative research methodology was employed, utilizing documentary research and content analysis of data retrieved from the Thai Digital Collection (TDC). The findings reveal that the development of Thai social studies research has been shaped by the "politics of knowledge production," which can be categorized into three distinct phases: 1) The 1960–1981 period: Knowledge production was centralized, focusing on national security ideologies and anti-communism within the context of the Cold War, with survey research serving as the primary methodology. 2) The 1982–2005 period: This era witnessed a decentralization of knowledge production to regional levels, aligning with globalization and the 1999 Education Reform. The focus shifted toward instructional innovation and Research and Development (R&D). 3) The 2006–2024 period: Amidst democratic regression and a resurgence of conservatism, research topics predominantly adopted the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy and state-sanctioned ideal citizenship as core themes, with R&D emerging as the most dominant methodology. The state of knowledge in Thai social studies tethered to the concepts of the ruling power. To transcend these limitations, future trends and directions should increase the proportion of qualitative and interdisciplinary research. Furthermore, research should be integrated with decentralization efforts to establish an ecosystem that promotes academic freedom, thereby truly responding to the diverse needs of society.

This article examines the erosion of collegiality in Nigeria’s nascent federal universities against the backdrop of the rising bureaucratic tendencies in such institutions. From the standpoint of a vintage case of one of such universities, the article observes that there has been a sustained systematic subversion of the collegial ethos through gradual bureaucratic centralism and excess. Using a qualitative analysis that relied on a synthesis of primary and secondary data, the article highlights aspects of these bureaucratic tendencies and underscores their implications for internal institutional autonomy and academic freedom. It posits that the trend is tantamount to the emasculation and usurpation of the faculty and, in effect, negates the culture of collegiality and academic sovereignty. To reverse this trend, the article makes a case for institutional reform aimed at devolving university governance strategically in a manner that restores the functional autonomy of the faculty alongside the academic sovereignty of its academia.

Although at first glance the definition of academic freedom seems straightforward, recent episodes show how its meaning is contested, especially in a moment of intense protest. The article first singles out a theoretical framework rooted in relational approach to social movement studies, presenting eventful protests as triggers for discursive critical junctures through the development of moral shocks and moral panics, fuelling a contestation of some central concepts also within academia. After briefly introducing ongoing research on the topic, in the central empirical parts of the article, main dilemmas related to the contentious politics of academic freedom are discussed. In the conclusion, academic freedom is presented as a global commitment.

The standing faculty Clinician Educator role in nursing: Benefits and challenges.

Abstract An increasingly fractured geopolitical environment is driving substantial change in the conduct of international academic research. In the European Union (EU) Member States have enacted numerous measures designed to limit or eliminate risks of espionage, foreign interference and illicit technological theft. However, these same measures are often rejected or resisted by higher education institutions, claiming they unnecessarily complicate research, stifle innovation and infringe on academic freedom. This paper seeks to examine one research security measure adopted in Germany. These Committees for Ethics in Security-Relevant Research (in German, Kommissionen für Ethik sicherheitsrelevanter Forschung or KEF) aim to provide researchers with guidance on ‘research of concern’ and—where necessary—the imposition of any regulatory controls or safeguards to the protection of that research. This paper presents a normative defence of Germany’s model for academic self-regulation and proposes that model for other States to possibly emulate in research security.

The sanctions regime imposed upon Russia after the annexation of Crimea in 2014 was modified and reached hitherto unimagined levels after the Russian full-scale attack on Ukraine in 2022. This article covers the Norwegian debate on academic sanctions, how the government’s statements are mirrored in the discourse of university rectors and pro-sanction academics, and how this pro-sanction discourse is opposed by academics articulating an anti-sanction discourse. Employing Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, this article argues that this conflict manifests in a discursive struggle where the soul of the university and academic freedom are at stake. While the issue of academic sanctions has been studied in detail by numerous scholars in recent years, the literature tends to focus upon the strategic and normative value, or lack thereof, of sanctions in specific cases. This study moves beyond these important issues by exploring what these discourses for and against sanctions mean for university autonomy and academic freedom, by exploring the discourses and their socially constructive capacities.The pro-sanction discourse defines the university as also having political functions, necessitating sanctions, whereas the anti-sanction discourse defines the university in a more autonomous fashion. Keywords: Discourse analysis, sanctions, new cold war, Russia, Norway

ABSTRACT We examine the evolving nature of academic freedom through the lived experiences of academics in higher education. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 43 academics across multiple world regions, this study advances theoretical understanding by developing a comprehensive philosophical framework that integrates epistemological, ontological, axiological, and praxiological dimensions. We propose to frame academic freedom as a collective capability that shapes and is shaped by institutional structures, power relations, and societal dynamics. It transcends traditional rights-based conceptualizations, illuminating how academic freedom operates as a complex ecosystem of epistemic inquiry, institutional structures, ethical principles, and practical strategies. It represents the capability of academic communities to pursue, create, and disseminate knowledge through epistemological freedom to challenge dominant paradigms and legitimize diverse ways of knowing; ontological autonomy to define and negotiate the boundaries between institutional enablement and institutional constraint; axiological independence to balance individual scholarly integrity with collective responsibility; and praxiological agency to implement innovative teaching and research practices within institutional frameworks. Our findings reveal how faculty negotiate institutional constraints through strategic engagement with these dimensions. The future of academic freedom appears increasingly shaped by technological advancements, political polarization, funding constraints, and evolving societal expectations, imposing adaptive institutional responses that balance these factors with scholarly independence and autonomy. Emerging themes suggest that DEI initiatives and spiritual practices have a relevant role in understanding the manifestations of academic freedom.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive legal analysis of the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the educational process of higher education institutions of Ukraine through the prism of the principles of academic integrity. The author conducted a thorough analysis of the provisions of the laws of Ukraine «On Education», «On Academic Integrity» and other legislative acts in terms of defining the concepts of academic plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication and falsification, as well as norms regarding authorship and intellectual property objects. The legal aspects of the issue of whether a result created using artificial intelligence can be recognized as an object of copyright, and who is the subject of intellectual property rights in the case of the use of algorithmic systems are investigated. Special attention is paid to the problem of identifying violations of academic integrity when using generative models and proving the fact of dishonest behavior. It is substantiated that the current legislation of Ukraine does not contain special norms that would directly regulate the use of artificial intelligence in educational activities, which creates gaps in law enforcement and requires the development of clear internal policies of higher education institutions. A distinction is proposed between the permissible use of artificial intelligence as an auxiliary tool (similar to reference resources) and the unacceptable one - when the technology actually replaces the individual intellectual activity of the student. The need for regulatory consolidation of the obligation to declare the use of artificial intelligence systems during the performance of educational and scientific work is emphasized. Based on the conducted scientific and legal analysis, it is concluded that effective legal regulation of the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the educational process should be based on a combination of the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty and academic freedom. It has been proven that the introduction of clear criteria for the admissibility of the use of artificial intelligence will help ensure a balance between the innovative development of the educational environment and the preservation of the principles of academic integrity in Ukraine.

The research groups Collaborative Economies and P2P Production at IBICT and NetLab of the School of Communication at UFRJ now publish the second issue of the eleventh volume of their journal P2P & INNOVATION. Our research groups once again take a stand in defense of democracy, freedom of expression, and academic research freedom. This is not an abstract defense of principles, but rather a defense of our own freedom and autonomy in our work. NetLab is a research laboratory focused on the Internet and Social Networks, dedicated to diagnosing digital disinformation as a historical fact and its social consequences, as well as discussing and suggesting guidelines and means for its Regulation, Oversight, and Control. Its agenda has made it possible to publish important and recognized scientific evidence. The attacks on NetLab have many faces, the main one being an avalanche of slander, defamation, and online pressure. NetLab resists and continues its work. It is worth mentioning the formation of a broad solidarity network in defense of the freedom to investigate disinformation and hate networks. It is important to highlight the decision of the Federal Supreme Court in the last week of June 2025, which adopted a regulatory solution based on three criteria: private notification for general crimes; court order in cases of slander, libel, and defamation; and duty of care for serious unlawful content such as terrorism, racism, and femicide — situations in which platforms must act preventively, blocking publication via algorithms. We would like to conclude by informing our authors and readers of the editorial decision to give the journal greater focus by also reducing the breadth of its scope. Among the specific topics that will remain within the journal’s scope are: innovation policies and practices; intellectual property; digital technologies and artificial intelligence; digital platforms; regulation and oversight of the use of digital technologies; information management; and the political economy of information and communication. The editorial transition of the journal P2P & Innovation will take place in the second half of this year, in order to allow for the necessary operational changes.

This article examines the challenges for preserving academic freedom and religious identity in Catholic universities in Australia, using a series of recent controversies at the Australian Catholic University (ACU) as a case study. ACU’s problems once again highlight a fundamental tension between the expression of Catholic identity and the obligations of publicly funded institutions in pluralistic democratic societies. Debates about how to reconcile Catholic identity with open intellectual inquiry have been ongoing since the 1850s. However, contemporary challenges supersede arguments first raised in the 1960s which presume a binary between episcopal control and secular autonomy. The ACU case reflects the increasingly complex stakeholder landscape of a modern Catholic university, including the growth of competing claims to define Catholic identity, the subordination of mission to market imperatives, and multiple frameworks for governance and compliance. The article suggests that Catholic universities ought not to be able to claim full autonomy over institutional character if they are in receipt of substantial public funding and it advocates for more transparent governance mechanisms that balance competing stakeholder interests without privileging any one of them.

ABSTRACT This paper critically examines the tension between academic autonomy and the growing bureaucratic control in Indonesian higher education. Using Herbert Marcuse's theory of one-dimensionality, the study investigates how expanding administrative and digital governance affect academic work, professional identities, and intellectual freedom. The research follows a qualitative approach, analyzing higher education policies, ministerial regulations, and institutional guidelines, and is enriched by interviews and observations of lecturers from both public and private universities. The findings indicate that, despite being recognized as autonomous professionals, lecturers’ academic practices are increasingly shaped by administrative duties, performance measures, and standardized reporting. These bureaucratic pressures prioritize efficiency and accountability over critical thinking, creativity, and academic involvement, turning lecturers into administrative agents. This results in the erosion of academic autonomy, a shift in professional identity towards compliance, and a disruption of core academic missions. The paper concludes that bureaucratic control undermines academic freedom and intellectual vitality, calling for participatory governance and reforms that truly value intellectual labor.

The Opinionated University: Academic Freedom, Diversity, and the Myth of Neutrality in American Higher Education

Academic Freedom Under Threat.

Speaking Across Silences: Academic Freedom, Care, and Responsibility

Academic freedom meets accreditation

The article explores the complex terrain of contemporary academic freedom, drawing on the author’s personal experiences of censorship in Singapore as well as global studies on freedom of expression. It argues that although archetypal state censorship – external, visible, and coercive – remains a feature of higher education, many restrictions are indirect and institutionalised within university bureaucracies. They tend to be highly targeted, such that only a minority of scholars working on sensitive topics are directly affected. Universities are therefore able to practise censorship even as they pursue excellence, at least as measured by the higher education industry and global ranking agencies. Another common feature of academic censorship is its performative purpose. Often, it is less about removing ideas from circulation than an opportunity for university administrators to signal their compliance with government leaders and other powerful actors.

ABSTRACT The actions of an authoritarian regime, especially through control, standardization and coercion, directed at educational institutions in order to maintain its power, pose a serious challenge to the rule of law and, in particular, to the preservation of academic freedom, democratic values and the advancement of civil society. This article aims to analyse and understand how the Belarussian regime undermines the rule of law, specifically, in higher education, and explores the sustainability of these institutions in the face of such repression. The focus of this study is the European Humanities University – Belarusian university, which was forced into exile due to its promotion of democratic values, liberal arts education and protection of human rights. The forced closure and expulsion of the university from Belarus demonstrates the wider consequences of such repression, especially its impact on civil society and intellectual communities. Despite all the difficulties, the university continues to provide education that upholds international standards and meets the mission of the university.

While censorship has been examined often in relation to academic freedom and free speech, self-censorship has been less often explored. This may be because there are many ‘shades of gray’ when it comes to self-censorship. For instance, self-censorship can be seen as a pragmatic or natural (or educational) response to scholarly peer review or teacher feedback, an act of moral cowardice, or the mark of serious epistemic injustice and conformism. So, what is self-censorship, and why is it bad? In this brief essay, I elucidate on some of the shades of gray as well as some of the risks and challenges of self-censorship. I explore self-censorship both as a common academic practice and as a mechanism of preserving the status quo. I consider the implications for thinking through self-censorship in relation to academic freedom and reflect on other considerations for future research.

This study highlights how Donald Trump’s first six months back in office have showcased an aggressive executive attack on academic freedom, an attack that bears the hallmarks of an illiberal regime. Drawing on executive orders, legislation and media reports from January 20, 2025, until July 20 2025, our analysis situates Donald Trump’s actions against academia alongside an existing pattern of authoritarian strategies. This analysis, which is organized around three central hypotheses—that the administration is defunding and restricting academic programs, is actively centralizing university governance, and is targeting dissenting scholars and research—showcases that the Trump administration’s actions at the beginning of its second term greatly mirror those used by past and contemporary authoritarian or autocratizing regimes. Our analyses pinpoints that American academia is continuously being reshaped into an ideologically compliant institution through executive pressures and coercion. Thus, our study highlights how academia can serve as both a site and a signal of democratic erosion in the United States.