Abstract This European Review Focus is based on a conference on the topic ‘Institutional Perspectives on Universities’ held at the Wenner-Gren Centre in Stockholm on 21−23 May 2025 with the support of the Wenner-Gren Foundations. The conference was part of a series arranged by the Higher Education, Research and Culture in European Society (HERCulES) group within Academia Europaea.
The Task Force on Environment, Sustainability and Climate (TFESC) of Academia Europaea investigates ways of enhancing global science policy communication on the topic of food security and sustainability. This Focus reports the initial outcome of this investigation in the form of three articles. First, given the complexity of the link between food security and sustainability, and in particular the two-way relation between the impact of food production on sustainability, on the one side, and of ecological degradation on food security, on the other, we explored the ways in which new Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) can provide more comprehensive knowledge on the question. Second, even though knowledge and awareness of the link between food security and sustainability have grown, this has by and large not yet translated into significant transformations of attitudes and actions by consumers. In this light, we analysed the implications for communication strategies. Acknowledging the necessity of global coordinated action, third, we analysed the experience of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is often hailed as a model for a global science–policy interface that provides the necessary link between producers of relevant scholarly knowledge and office-holding policymakers. This introduction explains the background to the TFESC investigation and outlines the reasoning in the three following articles.
Higher-education institutions have long relied on a broad range of internal and external stakeholders, including academic staff, administrators, governmental representatives, donors and industry. In recent decades, this stakeholder landscape has diversified, driven by higher-education reforms that have intensified competition, strengthened accountability and heightened expectations that universities respond to societal needs. At the same time, geopolitical tensions and growing societal distrust in academic institutions have underscored the need to reassess how stakeholders shape governance and strategic directions of universities. Against this backdrop, this article examines the changing role of stakeholders in higher-education governance through the lens of the stakeholder theory, focusing on their power, legitimacy and urgency. While traditional actors remain central, emerging and previously overlooked stakeholders - including students, early career academics, organized academic labour and EdTech platforms - are increasingly playing a role in higher-education decision making. The article explores the changing influence of these actors and what these shifts imply for institutional autonomy and academic freedom.
This article integrates Triple-helix and institutional logics perspectives to diagnose how professional, market and state logics generate risks in university research, and how hybrid governance can mitigate them. Conceptually, it advances a cross-level risk analysis (individual, organizational, system) and a triple-temporal mitigation design that aligns short-term relational routines, mid-term interface infrastructures and long-term institutional and policy change. The synthesis extends existing work on selective coupling and institutional complexity by linking specific risk mechanisms to sequenced interventions. It further refines research on boundary organizations and intermediaries by positioning interface roles within system-level coordination, and clarifies how openness, sovereignty and mission pressures map across logics within responsible research and innovation and open-science agendas. Overall, the study offers a parsimonious and actionable framework for steering collaborative research under conditions of institutional plurality.
Since the late twentieth century, institutional autonomy has become a major issue in the relationship between the government and higher education institutions, with autonomy being presented as a virtuous option that satisfied both government's regulatory aims and institutional capacities to develop in an increasingly dynamic and complex sector. Due to concerns about the effectiveness of higher education, the development of autonomy was increasingly linked to a market-like logic, with a growing emphasis on competition and efficiency. Thus, what was initially regarded as a path to emancipation of institutions from government's influence became a mode of relationship that could curtail previous dimensions of autonomy. One of the major regulatory dimensions that helps understand the reversals and nuances of institutional autonomy is funding. Like other regulatory dimensions, recent decades have seen the emergence of new forms of funding that have influenced institutional governance and management. In this text, we analyse these trends in European higher education by mapping changes in governments' approaches to the sector, specifically the evolution of funding mechanisms and how these highlight a shift in the pendulum between degrees of autonomy and modes of government's influence in institutions.
The purpose of this article is to give an account of how the values and organizational arrangements sustaining academic freedom and institutional autonomy may be affected by external pressure on academic research. The first part of the article seeks to clarify the concepts of academic freedom and institutional autonomy that guide our argument. The second part deals with external pressures on universities and introduces some distinctions that may help us tell the difference between external pressures that may be beneficial and those that may be harmful to academic research. The third part focuses on how organizational changes in research institutions have affected their ability to handle external pressures. It discusses how changes in leadership and internal decision making have affected the capacity of institutions to resist or deflect harmful effects of pressures. The fourth part analyses the role of public policies and how they may sustain or jeopardize academic freedom, before drawing a prescriptive conclusion about its defence under democratic and authoritarian political conditions.
New Public Management (NPM) could be considered as a rediscovery of bureaucratic organization, which hit the German university sector in the mid-1990s. More university autonomy came at the cost of budget negotiations, agreements on objectives, accountability, steering by indicators, third-party funding competition, etc. In this article, the positions and roles of higher-education and science professionals are used to show how the NPM regime of bureaucratic organization expanded into academic functions. The discussion paper 'More autonomy - less regulation. Proposals for the de-bureaucratization of the science system' by the German Academy of Sciences (Leopoldina) is used as a point of departure to discuss increasing external regulation (case: public third-party funding competition) and university-internal bureaucratization (case: professorial hiring). The theory-led discussion is based on the elaboration of bureaucratic organization as a concept defining the social forces of structures, actors and activities. The concept is further detailed by the four sub-concepts official duties, authority relations, employment of qualified personnel and career paths, and individual agency/enterprise, which emphasize that bureaucratic organization provides some leeway for bureaucrats within legal and ethical boundaries. The generic theoretical concept is suitable for all kinds of studies on bureaucratic organization, and is substantiated by core categories/variables.
American universities are increasingly threatened with cuts in government funding unless they eradicate diversity promoting programmes. To contextualize the targeting, this article reflects on two major organizational transformations in higher education in America: the rise and diffusion of university fundraising development offices and the emergence and growth of university diversity offices. The former was part of a long-term multiple stakeholder strategy that would make universities see themselves as less dependent on government. The latter reflected a more recent shift in the direction of valorizing diversity. Operating as organizational actors, universities launched both strategic initiatives. In retrospect universities underestimated their dependence on federal funding and overestimated public support for diversity promoting policies. American universities have both acquiesced and resisted the attacks on their institutional autonomy and the academic freedom of their professors. Calls for university leadership to save the university will ironically lead to more organization and greater management.
Against a remarkable diffusion of commitments to inclusion, equality and diversity in universities, and cases where these commitments are being contested, this study considers the institutional environments that shape universities' inclusionary commitments. Historical and sociological institutionalist perspectives are used to make sense of how regulatory and resource conditions of the national higher education (HE) systems that universities inhabit blend with global cultural pressures and supply universities with socially desirable ways of pursuing inclusion. A comparative case study of inclusionary commitments in an English and a Norwegian public research university is provided. Despite substantial differences between HE sectors, both universities portray themselves as deliberate and strategic in their pursuit of inclusion, and the state is a key 'rationalizer' of this process through equality legislation. Nevertheless, inclusionary commitments appear more organizationally embedded and cognizant of student needs in the English university. In the Norwegian university, structural measures to foster inclusion become more visible within the comparatively rudimentary organizational structure, with regional cooperation and the needs of personnel being highlighted. The findings show that the spread of inclusionary organizational actorhood is marked by differences in regulation, national service and market orientations between HE systems. They are paving distinct possibilities for how universities may relate to their inclusionary commitments if challenged.
During the past few decades, higher-education and research systems have been experiencing profound waves of reformed governance and organization resulting in a stronger emphasis on hierarchy, more well-defined boundaries between universities as organizational actors and their environments, more rigorous performance measurements at the organization level and a changed political control. Administration has been centralized and relations between academic and administrative staff have been transformed. Changes in university governance are sometimes described as a shift from collegiality to enterprise management. However, in previous studies we have found that this development could rather be described as a remixed governance. Universities are subject to mixed modes of governance related to the many tasks and missions they are expected to fulfil. Mixed modes of governance also stem from reforms based on widely held ideals of governance and organization. Much previous research has analysed the changing roles and influence of faculty and leadership that follow on these reforms. The diverse modes of governance also imply diverse roles for administration. Furthermore, with mixed modes of governance, the roles of administrators and their relations with academic faculty may vary depending on issues and situations. Based on observations of the governance mix of universities, in this article I ask: administration for what, how and by whom?
Drawing on a project conducted between 2017 and 2020 for the UK Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE), this article discusses the place of third space professionals within a changing professional workforce in UK higher education. At the same time as routine administrative roles in registry environments have, by and large, been superseded by online registration and data management facilities, new roles have emerged in a 'third space' between academic and professional spheres of activity. These have created issues of visibility, place, recognition and reward for those occupying them. Examples are given of a misalignment between such individuals and the organizational structures within which they work, affecting, for example, job descriptions, titles and promotion and progression criteria. The article goes on to reflect on the perceptions of senior institutional managers who are responsible for maintaining institutional structures, as well as of those in third space roles, and suggestions are made as to ways in which adjustments might be made for the future.
This article reports on a study of the selection of academic top leaders from 1900 to 2025 in six highly ranked universities on the 2024 Academic Ranking of World Universities. These institutions represent the United States (Harvard and Stanford) with presidents as leaders, the United Kingdom (Cambridge and Oxford) with vice-chancellors, and Scandinavia (Copenhagen and Oslo) with rectors. For the population as a whole, the study shows an increase in the length of tenure, and in the selection of female leaders and of externals, while there has also been a decline in the number of recruitments per decade, in recruitment ages and the recruitment of persons with a background in STEM disciplines and Medicine (STEMM). A comparison between the six universities has demonstrated that Harvard and Stanford differ from the other four by having much lower numbers of recruitments, longer length of tenures, lower recruitment ages and recruiting externals earlier than their European counterparts. The Europeans started recruiting externals and female leaders in the 1990s. Oslo has so far not recruited any outsider, and Stanford has picked only male leaders. High shares of STEMM leaders are exhibited by Stanford and Oslo, while Harvard and Oxford have had low shares. An analysis of the most recent recruitments demonstrates that Harvard, Stanford and Copenhagen include outsiders in the decision process and keep candidacies secret. The latter is also the case for Cambridge and Oxford, which, however, do not include externals in the decision process. Oslo also leaves it to internals to decide but has a process where candidacies are publicly known. For the future, it is expected that non-US institutions will follow the top US universities more and more, thereby increasingly involving search consultants. The patterns on the Anglo-American market for academic leaders found in the present study are likely to develop further.
This article examines the representation of the forests as ideological spaces in The Jeaste of Sir Gawain (c. 1450) and The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle (c. 1450) through an analysis of female characters' actions within these settings. By exploring the adventures, challenges, combats, and encounters experienced by Arthurian knights and women in the forests, this article argues that the romance forest is constructed in alignment with the principles of medieval chivalric ideology. Thus, it functions as a crucial site for the knight's quest and moral development. However, despite the forest's association with the knight's chivalric pursuit, it is also inhabited by women whose roles are often subordinated to the knight's narrative. These female figures are usually positioned as ancillary characters whose presence reinforces the chivalric ethos by facilitating the knight's journey towards self-realization and perfection. Consequently, it is argued that the forests of these romances operate as gendered and ideological spaces that privilege the knight's chivalric identity and self-aggrandisement while they marginalize and trivialize women's actions.
Yasunari Kawabata appropriates narrative elements from Western fairy tales in his late work, House of the Sleeping Beauties, applying the central image of the 'sleeping beauty' to a dark story set at night, shrouded in the gloominess and cold that often loom in people's late lives. Viewed through the lens of narrative gerontology, Kawabata deals with different forms of narrative foreclosure in crafting the story. At the subject level, old Eguchi, as the protagonist and main narrator, ventures into a secret place in pursuit of unusual experiences to restart his own life story and break through the narrative foreclosure in his old age. At the object level, the 'sleeping beauties' fall into narrative foreclosure in their deep slumber, becoming the 'Other', unable to speak for themselves. In his unique way, Kawabata endows them with expressive power through sincere sympathy. In addition, the writer also breaks through his own narrative foreclosure in his late career by subverting the classic fairy tale to explore and confront death, revealing an active attitude towards aging. However, Kawabata's suicide appears to counteract all these efforts, turning them into a mystery of ending.
Whilst universities have long needed to balance competing demands, the situation seems to have been exacerbated in recent years, particularly in relation to funding, digital disruption and political interference. This article explores implications for the recruitment and development of higher-education leaders. Building on the concept of the 'leadership pipeline' we consider the passages that must be navigated on the way to becoming an effective academic leader, alongside associated (often competing) logics and identities. Through vignettes from an empirical study in a Danish university we illustrate the complexities of leadership transitions, leadership disconnections and logic misalignment in educational leadership. The discussion presents an ecosystems model that shows the interdependencies and interconnections between core functions of higher education and the internal and external context. The article concludes by considering implications for leadership recruitment and development, with a particular focus on identity work(spaces) and the need to embrace multiple logics. Through such interventions, it is suggested, it may be possible to foster the required levels of inclusion, collaboration and resilience in higher-education leadership to navigate the challenging path(s) ahead.
This article explores how asset confiscation and redistribution mechanisms can enhance the operational efficiency and accountability of Ukraine's patrol police, with the Odesa region serving as a case study. Drawing on comparative insights from the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Canada, the research employs a mixed-methods approach combining legal, empirical, and statistical analysis (2019-2023). The findings indicate that, although patrol police performance and transparency have improved, the lack of a structured framework linking recovered criminal assets to local policing initiatives constrains long-term sustainability. Adapting international best practices, the study proposes legislative and institutional reforms to ensure that confiscated assets are transparently reinvested in patrol operations, officer training, and community safety programmes. The results contribute to ongoing discussions on aligning Ukraine's asset recovery mechanisms with EU standards and strengthening public trust through accountable resource management.
Europe faces a persistent research brain drain, undermining its ability to compete globally in science and technology. Drawing on the 2024 CESAER Research Careers Survey of 24 universities across Europe, complemented by in-depth case studies of Lisbon, Twente and Bergen, this article provides new empirical evidence on the conditions shaping research careers in European higher education and research institutions. It shows growth in the research workforce, but also highlights widespread reliance on temporary contracts, with significant variation across institutions and countries. While some universities are innovating with long-term career pathways and co-funding schemes, others remain locked into precarious, project-based hiring. This uneven landscape hampers Europe's ability to attract and retain talent. We propose three strategic priorities to reverse Europe's brain drain and achieve balanced brain circulation by 2035: (1) establishing an effective European Research Careers Observatory to monitor job quality and mobility; (2) reforming research assessment to emphasize stability and inclusivity; and (3) expanding EU-national co-funding mechanisms to create sustainable career pathways. We argue for a bold 'Choose Europe' initiative, led by the European Commission and supported by member states and institutions, to transform Europe into a magnet for global research talent.
The world of scholarship and science is currently in disarray and under severe threat. The Institutes for Advanced Study (IAS) have always been internationally recognized symbols for academic freedom and pioneering studies of the highest standards. In the last decades, there has been a remarkable proliferation of these centres, to where they are now a global phenomenon. At their root, these institutes all aim for curiosity-based research and the formation of transnational communities engaged in unobstructed scholarship and science. Alongside the worldwide development of the IAS, there has also arisen a parallel movement, commonly known as Open Science. Seen by many academics, institutions, funding bodies and governments as a much-needed transition in university systems, Open Science implies a significant change in academia. Commencing as an initiative to stimulate discussion on open access publishing, shared data-use, academic recognition and rewards, and the legitimacy of impact factors and university rankings, Open Science increasingly also centres on connecting research and education, and science and society. Both in the IAS, as well as in Open Science, there are important developments with regard to transdisciplinary research and education. As of yet, however, a connection between the ideals and aims of the IAS and Open Science has not explicitly been made in the literature. This article aims to open up a dialogue between these driving academic forces, so that they can face the complex challenges in the world together, and work in unison and synergy towards new academic identities.
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have become critical tools for analysing the complex interactions within agriculture and food systems, offering valuable insights for evidence-based policymaking. This article reviews 12 widely applied agriculture and food Integrated Assessment Models, categorizing them into four primary sub-groups: Food Security, Land Use, and Socio-economic Models; Hydrological and Water Resources Models; Land, Crop, and Food Production Models; and Food-Energy-Water Nexus Models. The review highlights their respective capabilities, including cost minimization, depth of the food-energy-water nexus analysis, integration with other domains and tools, and spatial and temporal resolution. A comparative assessment underscores each model's unique strengths, such as resource intensity accounting in FABLE, climate-focused numerical analysis in MAgPIE and IMPACT, resource balance optimization in GCAM, and scenario-based water resource allocation in WEAP. Synergies between models and their integration with other domains, including energy and economic systems, are also explored, demonstrating their potential for producing holistic scenarios addressing climate adaptation, resource constraints and dietary transitions. The findings emphasize the significant role Integrated Assessment Models play in advancing the EU's sustainability agenda, including the Green Deal and Common Agricultural Policy. These integrated approaches are crucial for crafting strategies that enhance food system resilience, optimize resource use, and support climate goals, positioning IAMs as indispensable instruments for shaping sustainable and equitable food systems worldwide.
This article investigates how Central and Eastern European (CEE) cities construct notions of Europeanness and articulate localized European identities through their participation in the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) programme. Focusing on the 17 CEE cities awarded the ECOC title between 2007 and 2028, the article argues that these cities use the ECOC platform not only to reframe their cultural narratives but also to reconcile and strategically re-narrate their communist pasts within a European framework. Employing a post-structuralist discourse analysis, the study identifies two interrelated discursive strategies - unity and diversity - through which cities position themselves in relation to a broader European identity. The findings highlight spatial and temporal variation in how Europeanness is mobilized. This analysis contributes to debates on cultural policy, memory politics, and identity-making in contemporary Europe.
