Tag: Education

  • Bridging further education and higher education: A practical agenda for the post-16 reforms

    Bridging further education and higher education: A practical agenda for the post-16 reforms

    Author:
    Imran Mir

    Published:

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This guest blog was kindly authored by Imran Mir, Campus Head and Programme Lead at Apex College Leicester.

    The embedding of the further education and higher education sectors has been a longstanding policy goal, but recent reforms have caused an urgent need than ever. The UK government has set the ambitious goal of having at least two-thirds of young people go on to higher-level learning by age 25, with at least 10% of them pursuing higher technical education or apprenticeships. While such targets can be seen as overly ambitious, they will only come to fruition if the gap between further education and higher education is efficiently bridged. Without this, there is a risk of losing students during the transition from one educational stage to the next. These government ambitions highlight why bridging further education and higher education is so important. Aligning both sectors is essential to turning these national policy goals into real progress for learners.

    The persistent progression problem

    Although there has been some growth in participation in higher education, disparities remain. Students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are four times less likely to have access to high-tariff universities. Whilst UCAS data for 2024 has shown growth in learner acceptances, this is largely down to an increase in the number of 18-year-olds, rather than a reduction in gaps between the most and least advantaged students. Further education is vital for social mobility; however, too many learners face major barriers when trying to transition into the higher education institutions of their choice.

    Five key levers to improve bridging

    1. Align curriculum and assessment
      When transitioning from further education to higher education, students will face a contrast in learning expectations. In the former, through A-Levels and vocational qualifications, assessments are exam-focused and often high-stakes. In comparison, higher education has a variety of assessment types, including coursework, presentations, and exams. These assessments are often less frequent, and a student’s grade is not as reliant on a single, high-stakes exam. To make this transition process smoother, higher education providers and further education providers should collaborate to co-design first-year assessments that look to integrate a blend of authentic tasks, ranging from portfolios to presentations. This would allow better preparation for students to progress into higher education while aligning expectations between further and higher education. This approach is supported by the Foundation Year Fee Cap Guidance, which explains the importance of curricula that support progression into higher-level study while avoiding the repetition of Level 3 content.
    2. Use admissions to recognise potential
      A large number of further education students, particularly those without access to enrichment activities, find it difficult to reach their potential, something which is not always recognised in higher education admissions. Many of these learners focus on technical or applied qualifications such as T Levels and Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs), which develop valuable practical and professional skills. However, because these programmes may not include the same kinds of enrichment activities often valued in traditional academic routes, their achievements are sometimes overlooked in admissions decisions. Universities should value T Levels, Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs), and other applied learning pathways. These routes must be recognised by universities. They must provide clear pathways showing how credits earned in further education can be transferred to the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE). This would result in the system being more inclusive for students who come from non-traditional routes into higher education..
    3. Share data and pastoral insight
      The lack of continued student support is another barrier. Colleges and universities must work together in creating a standardised set of transition data that includes information on curriculum, assessment types, and available support measures. For example, shared data could help universities identify where incoming students may need additional academic or well-being support. To enable a smooth transition, both sectors need to agree on how to share this information. The OfS Regulatory Framework promotes transparency in data sharing to ensure positive student outcomes.
    4. Co-deliver first-year teaching
      In certain subjects, co-delivering first-year content between FE and HE providers could help students with transitioning from further education. Modules on study skills, digital literacy, and professional competencies could be delivered jointly; this approach would particularly benefit students who work or commute. This method aligns with the OfS Strategy 2025–2030 Guide, which clearly stresses student success and sector resilience as a major priority.  
    5. Make the LLE a ladder, not a maze
      The LLE offers an opportunity for modular, credit-bearing study across a lifetime. For this vision to come to fruition, higher education institutions must look to implement clear credit transfer rules, transparent pricing, and clear pathways for learners to progress from Level 4 to full degrees. By having routes which are clearly mapped out, students will be better able to understand how to continue their education without getting lost in a complex system. The House of Commons Library LLE Briefing outlines how this could be achieved.

    Reflecting on the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper (DfE, 2025), there is clear intent to have a more connected tertiary system through plans such as the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and stronger employer-education partnerships. The proposal clearly acknowledges many of the issues outlined above, especially the need for smoother progression routes and credit transfer between further and higher education. However, questions will remain on how effectively these ambitions are going to be implemented. Without unified collaboration from both sides, clear accountability, and investment in teaching capacity and resources across both sectors, the reforms risk reinforcing the existing divides rather than bridging the gap.

    The prize

    For the government to achieve its goal of equity, further education students must not just enter higher education but also succeed once there. The reforms present an opportunity; they must be matched with the practical changes in how we align assessment, recognise technical routes in admissions, share data, work together where possible, and make the LLE more navigable. By taking these actions, policy ambitions can be translated into real-world success for students.   

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Peterhouse, Cambridge

    Higher education postcard: Peterhouse, Cambridge

    Greetings from Cambridge! Today we’re looking at a college so old it doesn’t even need to be called “college”.

    Let’s go back to 1280. Edward I, aka Edward Longshanks, was on the throne. England was calm after a period of internal turmoil; part of the reason for this was wars waged against the Welsh and the Scots. And in Ely, Bishop Hugh de Balsham was petitioning the King.

    Successfully, as it turns out. His petition sought permission to evict secular brethren from the Hospital of St John at Cambridge and replace them with “studious scholars”, who would live in accordance with the rules of Merton College in Oxford (hospital meant something different in 1280 – not a medical facility, but guesthouse or almshouse, the hos being the same as in host).

    Clearly this was not entirely satisfactory, as in 1284 Bishop Hugh gained another charter which differentiated these scholars from the other residents of the hospital. Reading between the lines, perhaps the hospital wasn’t entirely happy at having the students in it. In any event, Bishop Hugh obviated whatever problems there were by purchasing two houses and providing for a master and fourteen fellows who must be “worthy but impoverished”. The fellows would worship at the Church of St Peter Without Trumpington Gate, and the college thus became Peterhouse. Not Peterhouse College, by the way – just Peterhouse.

    And it was thus, founded in 1284, the first formal college in Cambridge, although the university had been going for a few years, and with official status since 1231. It had to wait until 1326 for another college to be founded (Clare College, then known as University Hall), and then by 1352 there were six colleges – enough to organise a league table!

    Peterhouse then plodded along. In the maelstrom of Tudor England, its master, Andrew Perne, was skilled at working with the prevailing political and religious opinions. It was said that the letters on the weathervane at St Peters’ Church stood for “Andrew Perne, Protestant”, or “Andrew Perne, Papist”, depending on which way the wind blew. When he was vice chancellor of the university, Perne had the bones of Martin Bucer, prominent protestant theologian and organiser, and later Regius Professor of Divinity, exhumed and burnt in the market square.

    Peterhouse was the second building in England to be lit by electric lighting. William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, was a Peterhouse alumnus, and had them installed in 1884, to celebrate the college’s sexcentenary (the building that had them before was the House of Lords, in 1883).

    Peterhouse admitted women undergraduates in 1984, seven hundred years after its foundation. (Women were admitted to postgraduate study in 1983, but the poetry of the anniversary required me to focus on undergraduates here. Sorry!) It is fair to say that this places it towards the conservative end of Oxbridge colleges. And in this case it is a literal truth.

    Peterhouse became the breeding ground for a generation of right-wing conservative politicians, including the Michaels Howard and Portillo. This is connected to the appointment of Maurice Cowling and Roger Scruton as fellows of the college. The former’s student followers included one who, allegedly, wore a black armband on the anniversary of General Franco’s death.

    Peterhouse’s catalogue of alumni includes some very impressive names. Thomas Grey, poet and country-churchyard elegist is one. And then scientists: we’ve seen Lord Kelvin, physicist and mathematician; you can also have James Clark Maxwell, father of electromagnetism. And then add Frank Whittle of the jet engine, and James Mason, of more great films than you can shake a stick at. Five Nobel laureates are associated with Peterhouse, all of them in Chemistry, in 1952, 1962, 1962, 1982 and 2013. Which must be some sort of a record. And maybe scope for a song: “it’s lucky for Peterhouse when the year ends in two.”

    We should also note that Peterhouse is potentially an inspiration for the college in Porterhouse Blue, Tom Sharpe’s fairly scabrous look at Cambridge life and politics.

    And finally, a snippet from the Illustrated London News on 25 May 1968, announcing the appointment of a new master at Peterhouse.

    In this context, there’s nothing particularly noteworthy about Dr Burkill – I just think it is striking that the appointment of a head of college was then considered newsworthy.

    Here’s a jigsaw of the postcard. It was posted in Ipswich on 15 September 1905 to Miss E Parfit of Handford Road, Ipswich:

    Dear Ethel, Hope you will like this. With love from V.R.

    Source link

  • Political Violence, Systemic Oppression, and the Role of Higher Education

    Political Violence, Systemic Oppression, and the Role of Higher Education

    The ambush shooting of two National Guardsmen near the White House on November 27, 2025, by Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, is the latest in a growing wave of politically motivated violence that has engulfed the United States since 2024. Lakanwal opened fire on uniformed service members stationed for heightened security, wounding both. Federal authorities are investigating whether ideological motives drove the attack, which comes against a backdrop of escalating domestic and international tensions. This ambush cannot be understood in isolation. It is part of a larger pattern of domestic political violence that has claimed lives across ideological lines. 

    Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was assassinated at Utah Valley University during a campus event in September 2025. Minnesota state representative Mary Carlson and her husband were murdered in their home by a man impersonating law enforcement, while a state senator and spouse were injured in the same spree. Governor Josh Shapiro survived an arson attack on his residence earlier this year. Even Donald Trump was the target of an assassination attempt in July 2024. Added to this grim tally are incidents such as the 2025 Manhattan mass shooting, in which young professionals, including two Jewish women, Julia Hyman and Wesley LePatner, were killed, and the Luigi Mangione case, in which a former student allegedly killed a corporate executive in New York. Together, these incidents reveal a nation in which lethal violence increasingly intersects with politics, identity, and ideology.

    The domestic escalation of violence cannot be separated from broader structures of oppression. Migrants and asylum seekers face detention, family separation, and deportation under the authority of ICE, often in conditions described as inhumane, creating fear and vulnerability among refugee communities. Routine encounters with law enforcement disproportionately harm Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other marginalized communities. Excessive force and lethal policing add to communal distrust, reinforcing perceptions that violence is a sanctioned tool of the state. Political rhetoric compounds the problem. President Trump and other political leaders have repeatedly framed immigrants, political opponents, and even students as threats to national security, implicitly legitimizing aggressive responses and providing fodder for extremist actors.

    The domestic situation is further complicated by U.S. foreign policy, which has often contributed to global instability while modeling the use of violence as an instrument of governance. In Palestine, military aid to Israel coincides with attacks on civilians and infrastructure that human-rights organizations describe as ethnic cleansing or genocide. In Venezuela, U.S. sanctions, threats, and proxy operations have intensified humanitarian crises and political instability. Complicity with the governments of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia enables human-rights abuses abroad while emboldening domestic actors who mimic state-sanctioned violence. These global policies reverberate at home, influencing public discourse, shaping extremist narratives, and creating a climate in which political and ideological violence is increasingly normalized.

    Higher education sits at the nexus of these domestic and global pressures. Universities and colleges are not merely observers; they are active participants and, in some cases, victims. The assassination of Charlie Kirk on a campus underscores that institutions of learning are no longer insulated from lethal political conflict. Alumni, recent graduates, and professionals—such as the victims of the Manhattan shooting—are affected even after leaving school, revealing how closely academic networks intersect with broader societal risks. International and refugee students, particularly from Afghan and Middle Eastern communities, face heightened anxiety due to restrictive immigration policies, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and the real threat of violence. Faculty teaching topics related to immigration, race, U.S. foreign policy, or genocide are increasingly targeted by harassment, threats, and institutional pressures that suppress academic freedom. The cumulative stress of political violence, systemic oppression, and global conflicts creates trauma that universities must address comprehensively, both for students and faculty.

    Higher education cannot prevent every act of violence, nor can it resolve the nation’s deep political fractures. But it can model ethical and civic engagement, defending inquiry and speech without succumbing to fear or political pressure. It can extend support to vulnerable communities, promote critical thinking about the domestic roots of political violence and the consequences of U.S. foreign policy, and foster ethical reflection that counters the normalization of aggression. Silence or passivity risks complicity. Universities must recognize that the threats affecting campuses, alumni, and students are interconnected with broader systems of power and oppression, both domestic and global.

    From the White House ambush to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, from the Minnesota legislators’ murders to the Manhattan mass shooting, from Luigi Mangione’s high-profile killing to systemic violence enforced through ICE and police overreach, and amid the influence of incendiary political rhetoric and U.S. complicity in violence abroad, the United States is experiencing an unprecedented convergence of domestic and international pressures. Higher education sits at the center of these converging forces, and how it responds will shape not only campus safety and academic freedom but also the broader civic health of the nation. The challenge is immense: to uphold democratic values, protect communities, and educate students in a society increasingly defined by fear, extremism, and violence.

    Sources

    Reuters. “FBI probes gunman’s motives in ambush shooting of Guardsmen near White House.” The Guardian. Coverage on suspect identification and political reaction. AP News. Statements by national leaders following attacks. Washington Post. Analysis of domestic violent extremism and political violence trends. People Magazine. Reporting on Minnesota legislator assassination. NBC/AP. Statements by Gov. Josh Shapiro after Charlie Kirk’s killing. Utah Valley University and local ABC/Fox affiliates on the Kirk shooting. Jewish Journal, ABC7NY. Coverage of Manhattan mass shooting and Jewish victims. Reuters. Luigi Mangione case and court proceedings. Human Rights Watch / Amnesty International reports on Palestine, Venezuela, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Brookings Institute. Analysis of political violence and domestic extremism. CSIS. “Domestic Extremism and Political Violence in the United States.”

    Source link

  • Students must intentionally develop durable skills to thrive in an AI-dominated world

    Students must intentionally develop durable skills to thrive in an AI-dominated world

    Key points:

    As AI increasingly automates technical tasks across industries, students’ long-term career success will rely less on technical skills alone and more on durable skills or professional skills, often referred to as soft skills. These include empathy, resilience, collaboration, and ethical reasoning–skills that machines can’t replicate.

    This critical need is outlined in Future-Proofing Students: Professional Skills in the Age of AI, a new report from Acuity Insights. Drawing on a broad body of academic and market research, the report provides an analysis of how institutions can better prepare students with the professional skills most critical in an AI-driven world.

    Key findings from the report:

    • 75 percent of long-term job success is attributed to professional skills, not technical expertise.
    • Over 25 percent of executives say they won’t hire recent graduates due to lack of durable skills.
    • COVID-19 disrupted professional skill development, leaving many students underprepared for collaboration, communication, and professional norms.
    • Eight essential durable skills must be intentionally developed for students to thrive in an AI-driven workplace.

    “Technical skills may open the door, but it’s human skills like empathy and resilience that endure over time and lead to a fruitful and rewarding career,” says Matt Holland, CEO at Acuity Insights. “As AI reshapes the workforce, it has become critical for higher education to take the lead in preparing students with these skills that will define their long-term success.”

    The eight critical durable skills include:

    • Empathy
    • Teamwork
    • Communication
    • Motivation
    • Resilience
    • Ethical reasoning
    • Problem solving
    • Self-awareness

    These competencies don’t expire with technology–they grow stronger over time, helping graduates adapt, lead, and thrive in an AI-driven world.

    The report also outlines practical strategies for institutions, including assessing non-academic skills at admissions using Situational Judgment Tests (SJTs), and shares recommendations on embedding professional skills development throughout curricula and forming partnerships that bridge AI literacy with interpersonal and ethical reasoning.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Education Department seeks delay in landmark borrower defense settlement

    Education Department seeks delay in landmark borrower defense settlement

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • The U.S. Department of Education is asking a federal judge for an 18-month extension to decide borrower defense claims from students who were promised decisions by January — or automatic relief if their cases aren’t resolved by then. 
    • The nearly 200,000 borrowers still awaiting decisions are covered by a landmark 2022 settlement that promised automatic debt relief or timely decisions based on when borrowers filed claims and what institutions they attended.
    • The Project on Predatory Student Lending, a nonprofit legal firm representing the borrowers, urged the judge overseeing the case to reject the Education Department’s request for an extension. “It is time for the Department to hold to its commitments and move this Settlement to its final phase,” the group said in a Nov. 21 court filing. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The settlement in the Sweet v. McMahon case stems from a class-action lawsuit filed during the first Trump administration that accused the Education Department of stonewalling decisions on applications for borrower defense to repayment, a federal program that provides debt relief to students defrauded by their colleges. 

    The settlement divided borrowers into three groups. 

    It granted automatic relief to the first group, which was composed of roughly 200,000 borrowers who attended one of the 151 colleges listed by the department. The list was dominated by for-profit institutions, including both large chains that had shuttered and still-operating colleges. 

    The second group was promised timely decisions, or automatic relief if the Education Department didn’t meet certain deadlines. The agency told the court earlier this year it had resolved many of those cases, and will provide another update in December. 

    And the last group — which is now facing a potential delay — is composed of the 207,000 people who filed over 251,000 borrower defense claims after the settlement had been struck but before it received final court approval. 

    The Biden administration’s Education Department promised to make timely decisions on their cases — or else provide automatic relief to them by Jan. 28 of next year. Now, the department under President Donald Trump is requesting to move that deadline back to July 2027. 

    In a Nov. 6 court filing, the agency said it lacked the resources to quickly issue decisions on such a large pool of applications. 

    “The Department has not received the resources that are needed to adjudicate post-class applications — Congress repeatedly ignored requests for funding to increase staffing to the levels the Department deemed necessary to fully implement the settlement,” the agency said, adding that its Federal Student Aid office “has instead seen staffing dwindle at the time when resources for postclass adjudication are most needed.”

    Trump signed an order to close the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law” and has asked Congress to reduce its funding.  

    The Education Department has cut its staff roughly in half under Trump and moved to outsource its programs to other federal agencies without first seeking congressional approval — a move some say could be a violation of the law. 

    The department said it is now adjudicating about 1,500 borrower defense applications each month for the final settlement group. As of Oct. 31, it had issued decisions on almost 54,000 of the final group’s applications. 

    It projected that roughly 193,000 borrower defense applications covered by the settlement would still lack decisions by the January deadline. Those borrowers’ outstanding loan balances total $11.8 billion, the Education Department said in court documents. It also said about half of the group’s borrower defense claims have so far been denied. 

    In a statement Wednesday, Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent the Trump administration is requesting more time so taxpayers aren’t “burdened with discharges for ineligible borrowers.”

    “Although the Department has complied with the Court’s deadlines in good faith, the upcoming January deadline is unreasonable,” Kent said. “Without adequate time to review each outstanding borrower defense case, taxpayers could be forced to shoulder $6 billion in windfall discharges for ineligible borrowers, based on the Department’s current adjudication patterns.” 

    In response to the Education Department’s request, lawyers for the borrowers slammed the department’s request. 

    “Less than 12 weeks before the deadline, the Department reveals that not only is it behind schedule to meet that deadline, it never had a prayer of meeting the deadline,” they said. “Out of more than 251,000 Post-Class applications, it has adjudicated fewer than 54,000 — barely one-fifth.”

    Source link

  • Education Department outsourcing is unlawful, amended lawsuit claims

    Education Department outsourcing is unlawful, amended lawsuit claims

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s plans to move core programming to other agencies is illegal and harmful to K-12 and higher education students, educators and families, according to an amended lawsuit filed Tuesday.

    Brought forth by a broad coalition of school districts, employee unions and a disability rights organization, the amended complaint seeks to halt the outsourcing of Education Department programs. 

    “Taking away the services and supports students rely on will irreparably hurt children, families, educators, schools, and communities, in states across the nation,” said a Tuesday statement by Democracy Forward, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case. “The Department of Education offers important support to educators and communities throughout the nation and the unlawful attempts to shut down the Department are nothing less than an abandonment of the future of our country.”

    In a statement emailed to K-12 Dive on Wednesday, Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Education Department, said, “It’s no surprise that blue states and unions care more about preserving the DC bureaucracy than about giving parents, students, and teachers more control over education and improving the efficient delivery of funds and services.”

    On Nov. 18, the Education Department announced it was developing interagency agreements with other federal agencies to support six programs, including with the U.S. Department of Labor to handle the management of about $28 billion in K-12 funding for low-income school districts, homeless youth, migrant students, academic support, afterschool programs, districts receiving Impact Aid and other activities.

    Another interagency agreement places about $3.1 billion in institution-based grants for postsecondary education programming at the Labor Department.

    The moves add to a partnership the Education Department created with the Labor Department earlier this year to take over the management of federal career and technical assistance programs. Democratic lawmakers, during a Nov. 19 House Education and Workforce subcommittee hearing, said several state CTE programs ran into funding delays due to a new grant management process at the Labor Department.

    While the Education Department does not yet have formal plans to move the management of special education, civil rights enforcement and federal student aid out of the agency, those options are still being explored, a senior department official said during a press call on Nov. 18.

    Even when programming shifts under the interagency agreements, the Education Department would still be the agency responsible for these programs, with the partner agencies taking on much of the daily operations.

    The Trump administration has said the continual downsizing of the Education Department is meant to reduce federal bureaucracy and give states more autonomy over spending allocations.

    During a White House press conference Nov. 20, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said there’s been a “hard reset” of the country’s educational system. “That reset was a campaign promise from President Trump to send education back to the states and end Washington’s micromanagement of education once and for all,” McMahon said. 

    Critics, however, say the disruptions from shifting agency responsibilities, along with Education Department staff reductions and delays in grant funding, is causing havoc for K-12 and higher education systems. 

    The updated complaint in Somerville v. Trump, which was consolidated with New York v. McMahon, was brought against the Education Department by groups of states, school districts and teacher unions. The Arc of the United States is now an additional plaintiff in the case.

    The cases were heard earlier this year before district and appeals courts, which issued and upheld injunctions blocking the administration’s actions. In July, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay allowing the changes at the Education Department to take place for now.

    Source link

  • A topic modelling analysis of higher education research published between 2000 and 2021

    A topic modelling analysis of higher education research published between 2000 and 2021

    by Yusuf Oldac and Francisco Olivas

    We recently embarked upon a project to explore the development of higher education research topics over the last decades. The results were published in Review of Education. Our aim was to thematically map the field of research on higher education and to analyse how the field has evolved over time between 2000 and 2021. This blog post summarises our findings and reflects on the implications for HE research.

    HE research continues to grow. HE researchers are located in globally diverse geographical locations and publish on diversifying topics. Studies focusing on the development of HE with a global-level analysis are increasingly emerging. However, most of these studies are limited to scientometric network analyses that do not include a content-related focus. In addition, they are deductive, indicating that they tried to fit their new findings into existing categories. Recently, Daenekindt and Huisman (2020) were able to capture the scholarly literature on higher education through an analysis of latent themes by utilising topic modelling. This approach got attention in the literature, and the study’s contribution was highlighted in an earlier SRHE blog post. We also found their study useful and built on it in our novel analysis. However, their analysis focused only on generating topics from a wide range of higher education journals and did not identify explanatory factors, such as change over the years or the location of publication. After identifying this gap, we worked towards moving one step further.

    A central contribution of our study is the inclusion of a set of research content explanatory factors, namely: time, region, funding, collaboration type, and journals, to investigate the topics of HE research. In methodological terms, our study moves ahead of the description of the topic prevalence to the explanation of the prevalence utilizing structural topic modelling (Roberts et al, 2013).

    Structural topic modelling is a machine learning technique that examines the content of provided text to learn patterns in word usage without human supervision in a replicable and transparent way (Mohr & Bogdanov, 2013). This powerful technique expands the methodological repertoire of higher education research. On one hand, computational methods make it possible to extract meaning from large datasets; on the other, they allow the prediction of emerging topics by integrating the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nevertheless, many scholars in HE remain reluctant to engage with such methods, reflecting a degree of methodological conservatism or tunnel vision (see Huisman and Daenekindt’s SRHE blog post).

    In this blog post, our intention is not to go deep into the minute details of this methodological technique, but to share a glimpse of our main findings through the use of such a technique. With the corpus of all papers published between 2000 and 2021 in the top six generalist journals of higher education, as listed by Cantwell et al (2022) and Kwiek (2021) both, we analysed a dataset of 6,562 papers. As a result, we identified 15 emergent research topics and several major patterns that highlight the thematic changes over the last decades. Below, we share some of our findings, accompanied by relevant visualisations.

    Glimpse at the main findings with relevant visuals

    The emergent 15 higher education topics and three visibly rising ones

    Our topic modelling analysis revealed 15 distinct topics, which are largely in line with the topics discussed in previous studies on this line (eg Teichler, 1996; Tight, 2003; Horta & Jung, 2014). However, there are added nuances in our analysis. For example, the most prevalent topics are policy and teaching/learning, which are widely acknowledged in the field, but new themes have emerged and strengthened over time. These themes include identity politics and discrimination, access, and employability. These areas, conceptually linked to social justice, have become central to higher education research, especially in US-based journals but not limited to them. The visual below demonstrates the changes over the years for all 15 topics.

    • The Influence of funding on higher education research topics

    Research funding plays a crucial role in shaping certain topics, particularly gender inequality, access, and doctoral education. Studies that received funding exhibited a higher prevalence of these socially significant topics, underscoring the importance of targeted funding to support research with social impact. The data visualisation below summarises the influence of reported funding for each topic. The novelty of this pattern needs to be highlighted because we have not come across a previous study looking into the influence of funding existence on research topics in the higher education field.

    • The impact of collaboration on higher education research topics

    Collaborative publications are more prevalent in topics such as teaching and learning, and diversity and social relations. By contrast, theoretical discussions, identity politics, policy, employability, and institutional management are more common in solo-authored papers. This pattern aligns with the nature of these topics and the data requirements for research. Please see the visualised data below.

    We highlight that although the relationship between collaboration and citation impact or researcher productivity is well studied, we are not aware of any evidence of the effect of collaboration patterns on topic prevalence, particularly in studies focusing on higher education. So, this finding is a novel contribution to higher education research.

    • Higher education journals’ topic preferences

    Although the six leading journals claim to be generalist, our analysis shows they have differing publication preferences. For example, Higher Education focuses on policy and university governance, while Higher Education Research and Development stands out for teaching/learning and indigenous knowledge. Journal of Higher Education and Review of Higher Education, two US-based journals, have the highest prevalence of identity politics and discrimination topics. Last, Studies in Higher Education has a significantly higher prevalence in teaching and learning, theoretical discussions, doctoral education, and emotions, burnout and coping than most of the journals.

    • Regional differences in higher education research topics

    Topic focus varies significantly by the region of the first author. First, studies from Asia exhibit the highest prevalence of academic work and institutional management. Studies from Africa show a higher prevalence of identity politics and discrimination. Moreover, studies published by first authors from Eastern European countries stand out with the higher prevalence of employability. Lastly, the policy topic has a high prevalence across all regions. However, studies with first authors from Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean showed a higher prevalence of policy research in higher education than those from North America and Western Europe. By contrast, indigenous knowledge is most prominent in Western Europe (including Australia and New Zealand). The figure below demonstrates these in visual format.

    Concluding remarks

    Higher education research has grown and diversified dramatically over the past two decades. The field is now established globally, with an ever-expanding array of topics and contributors. In this blog post, we shared the results of our analysis in relation to the influence of targeted funding, collaborative practices, regional differences, and journal preferences on higher education research topics. We have also indicated that certain topics have risen in prevalence in the last two decades. More patterns are included in the main research study published in Review of Education.

    It is important to note that we could only include the higher education papers published up to 2021, the latest available data year when we started the analyses. The impact of generative artificial intelligence and recent major shifts in the global geopolitics, including the new DEI policies in the US and overall securitisation of science tendencies, may not be reflected fully in this dataset. These themes are very recent, and future studies, including replications with similar approaches, may help provide newly emerging patterns.

    Dr Yusuf Oldac is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at The Education University of Hong Kong. He holds a PhD degree from the University of Oxford, where he received a full scholarship. Dr Oldac’s research spans international and comparative higher education, with a current focus on global science and knowledge production in university settings.

    Dr Francisco Olivas obtained his PhD in Sociology from The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He joined Lingnan University in August 2021. His research lies in the intersections between cultural sociology, social stratification, and subjective well-being, using quantitative and computational methods.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • ICE Detains Oklahoma Professor With H-1B Visa

    ICE Detains Oklahoma Professor With H-1B Visa

    Abedini’s detention makes real the fears of many foreign and American academics who are rethinking or boycotting travel to academic conferences in the U.S.

    Peter Zay/AFP/Getty Images

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained a University of Oklahoma professor Saturday while he was on his way to a conference.

    Vahid Abedini, a professor of Iranian Studies, was stopped and detained while he was boarding his flight to attend the Middle East Studies Association conference in Washington, D.C. He was released Monday night, according to a LinkedIn post.

    “I’m relieved to share that I was released from custody tonight. It was a deeply distressing experience, especially seeing those without the support I had,” Abedini wrote on LinkedIn early Tuesday morning. “My sincere thanks to my friends and colleagues at the University of Oklahoma, the Middle East Studies Association, and the wider Iran studies and political science community for helping resolve this.”

    Abedini did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. According to Joshua Landis, Abedini’s colleague and co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, Abedini has an H-1B visa.

    “ICE arrested our beloved professor Vahid Abedini,” Landis wrote on X Monday. “He has been wrongfully detained because he has a valid H-1B visa—a non-immigrant work visa granted to individuals in ‘specialty occupations,’ including higher education faculty. We are praying for his swift release.”

    Reached for comment, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed: “This Iranian national was detained for standard questioning. He’s been released.”

    Abedini’s detention makes real the fears of many foreign and American academics who are rethinking or boycotting travel to academic conferences in the U.S. due to concerns about wrongful arrests by immigration enforcement.

    In a statement, the MESA Board of Directors said they were “disturbed” to learn of Abedini’s detention and “deeply concerned” about the circumstances. The University of Oklahoma declined to comment on the situation.

    Source link

  • Duke Asked Some Faculty to Avoid Talking to Media

    Duke Asked Some Faculty to Avoid Talking to Media

    Duke is facing a $108 million federal funding freeze and multiple federal investigations. 

    Duke University file photo

    As Duke University navigates a $108 million federal research funding freeze and multiple investigations by the Trump administration, administrators want faculty to avoid talking to the media about institutional operations, The Chronicle, Duke’s student newspaper reported Monday.

    According to an August email obtained by The Chronicle, Jenny Edmonds, associate dean of communications and marketing at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy, encouraged faculty to “continue to engage with the media to disseminate [their] research as [they] have always done,” while also cautioning that “media attention to institutions of higher education and discussions about institutional responses to policy changes have become more prominent than ever.”

    “In this moment in particular, questions about Duke and current events are being answered by Frank Tramble and his team,” Edmonds wrote. “If you are contacted by the media about overarching issues confronting the University, please forward the requests to [Sanford’s Senior Public Relations Manager Matt LoJacono] and me.”

    Although it wasn’t a universitywide directive, The Chronicle obtained emails that show some other departments also gave their faculty similar instructions to route media requests through the university’s central communications channels.

    At an Academic Council meeting in October, Duke’s president, Vincent Price, and council chair, Mark Anthony Neal, commended faculty members for not speaking to a New York Times reporter; the reporter had visited the campus while working on a story about the Trump administration targeting Duke’s diversity, equity and inclusion program.

    “It was pretty amazing that [the reporter] actually got no commentary from Duke officials and Duke faculty,” Neal continued. “Even if it wasn’t overtly communicated to the community, the community understood the stakes of that mode of inquiry.”

    At that meeting Price also called Trump’s higher education compact—which would allegedly give universities preferential funding in exchange for making sweeping institutional policy changes— “highly problematic,” according to The Chronicle. Despite public pressure, Duke hasn’t officially rejected the terms of the compact.

    Source link

  • ED Investigates Berkeley Over Protest Violence

    ED Investigates Berkeley Over Protest Violence

    Four people were arrested at a Nov. 10 protest at UC Berkeley over an event for Turning Point USA.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    The Department of Education is reviewing potential violations of the Clery Act at the University of California, Berkeley following violence at a campus protest.

    Fights broke out and four people were arrested at a Nov. 10 protest against an event for Turning Point USA, the conservative student group founded by Charlie Kirk, Cal Matters reported. The organization has received newfound attention after Kirk was shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University in September, exactly two months before the event at UC Berkeley.

    The Department of Education announced the launch of the investigation Tuesday.

    “Just two months after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated on a college campus, UC Berkeley allowed a protest of a Turning Point USA event on its grounds to turn unruly and violent, jeopardizing the safety of its students and staff. Accordingly, the Department is conducting a review of UC Berkeley to ensure that it has the procedures in place to uphold its legal obligation to maintain campus safety and security,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.

    ED also accused the university of having “a history of violating the Clery Act” in a news release announcing the investigation, citing a $2.4 million fine and settlement agreement in 2020 for UC Berkeley’s failure to properly classify 1,125 crimes on campus and insufficient record keeping.

    The Department of Justice previously announced a probe into the university earlier this month, claiming that “Antifa,” a decentralized, left-wing movement was involved in the Nov. 10 protests.

    UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof told Inside Higher Ed by email that the university “has an unwavering commitment to abide by the laws, rules and policies that are applicable to the university” and “will continue to cooperate with governmental inquires and investigations.”

    Mogulof added that the university provided public reports about two violent crimes that occurred Nov. 10: a fistfight over an attempted robbery and someone being hit by a thrown object. He also highlighted efforts by administrators “to support the First Amendment rights of all by deploying a large number of police officers from multiple jurisdictions, and a large number of contracted private security personnel” and closing off parts of campus on the day of the protest.

    The investigation comes as the Trump administration has clashed with the University of California system in recent months as it sought to cut off federal research funding over alleged antisemitism and how administrators handled pro-Palestinian campus protests in spring 2024. The federal government has also demanded the University of California, Los Angeles, agree to a $1.2 billion fine and make a number of changes in response to the administration’s concerns.

    A federal judge recently ruled against the federal government and its “blanket policy of denying any future grants” to UCLA and determined that the Trump administration can’t demand payouts from University of California member institutions as it conducts civil rights investigations.

    Source link