The Brexit vote and the COVID-19 pandemic greatly disrupted longstanding higher education (HE) internationalisation policies and practices, and in particular the taken-for-grantedness of physical student mobility in a borderless European Union (EU). While contemporary witnesses predicted radical Brexit- and pandemic-induced transformations of HE internationalisation, theoretical conceptualisations of institutional change and stability generally highlight the importance of path dependencies (Hall & Taylor, 1996; Immergut, 1998; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2008).This study departs from the competing appraisals of the transformative impact of the two disruptions. It presents key findings from a recently completed dissertation project, which asks: How have Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic impacted HE internationalisation in different country contexts?
To answer this question, a novel analytical framework is developed, which combines the diachronic perspective of historical institutionalism with the multidimensional conceptualisation of institutions as stipulated by sociological institutionalism. Drawing on Scott’s (2008) institutional dimensions, regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive indicators of HE internationalization are defined, and the disruption-antecedent institutional dimensions are compared with their state during the disruption-induced window of opportunity, which covers the time frame of 2016 until 2021. Based on patterns of change and/or stability across the three individual dimensions, three competing overarching institutional trajectories in the context of disruptions are established: A) radical change, B) partial change, or C) stability. The analytical framework is applied to the three country cases of England, France, and Germany given that they not only feature the most internationalised European HE systems in terms of the number of inbound degree-seeking international students, but they also represent different archetypes of HE governance. Thus, the three-way comparison of the disruptions’ (non-)impact on the market-based English HE system, the state-dominated French HE system, and the Humboldtian German HE system allows for a compelling analysis of the way antecedent institutional features shape disruption responses.
The empirical study draws on qualitative content analysis of 44 expert interviews conducted between 2020 and 2021 with Senior Internationalisation Officers working at English, French, and German universities; as well as policymakers employed at national ministries and national internationalisation agencies. The expert interviews are further triangulated with 234 documents including governmental and organisational briefs, and a wealth of news items that capture country-specific developments; as well as the limited secondary literature on the disruptions’ impact on HE policy.
Based on the comparative analysis of Brexit- and COVID-19-related developments in the three country contexts, the study finds that Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic did not lead to radical institutional change as was projected by contemporary witnesses. Rather, the disruptions opened up windows of opportunity for institutional change agents to reinforce existing path trajectories or clear the path for already concretely decided but previously languishing policy reforms. The observed path reinforcement and path clearing particularly concerned HE internationalisation policies and norms connected to the positive or negative appraisal of European HE integration, and digitalisation reforms.

Germany is one of the countries that has received the most refugees worldwide. Among them are many who have since completed preparatory studies and (re)entered higher education. Germany is also one of the most popular destination countries for international students. While there are already some studies on the social and academic integration of international students at German universities, this perspective has so far been completely lacking in relation to refugee students. In particular, there is no comparative research between refugee students and international and domestic students. We use data from a large representative survey of students at German universities conducted by the DZHW in the summer semester 2021 (“Die Studierendenbefragung”) to investigate the level and determinants of social and academic integration of refugee, international and domestic students in comparison. We differentiate between the student groups according to whether or not they obtained their higher education entrance qualification in Germany and whether or not they have a refugee background. In addition, we take a resource-theoretical perspective on social and academic integration and consider socio-demographic characteristics, social background as well as internal and external resources as determinants. We present descriptive and bivariate results on group differences in social and academic integration as well as multivariate regression models. Our results show that social and academic integration is lower for refugee students than for other international and domestic students. This disadvantage can be partly explained by a lack of external resources due to financial and housing-related obstacles. However, subjectively assessed language skills can also play a role. Disadvantages in academic and social integration can increase the risk of dropping out of university. We discuss implications for further research and policy.

We live in times of profound crises that deeply transform societies around the globe (Marginson, 2024b; Münch, 2023; Schulze, 2011). Russia’s war against Ukraine, the conflict between Israel and Palestine, the climate crises and the rise of artificial intelligence fundamentally raise the question of the contribution of organizational theory towards the future of the university. In this contribution, we examine the potential for universities to build a future in uncertain times. To this end, we explore the relationship between theories of organizational resilience, vulnerability, organizational sensemaking, and neo-institutionalism. Our focus on these theoretical approaches is motivated by their respective contributions to understanding and addressing organizational problems. While neo-institutionalist theory offers insights into the multiple layers and structures of social reality, organizational resilience provides a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that enable organizations to withstand crises and build future-oriented strategies. Organizational sensemaking specifies the detection mechanisms of vulnerable societies in anticipating futures and sensitizing for the process of interpreting events (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Weick et al., 2005). To address these questions, we draw on the notion that the university can be perceived as a vulnerable organization. This holistic concept encompasses both progressive and regressive factors that give rise to the notion of “bouncing back to the normal state” of the organization, which is commonly argued by theories of resilience (Gilson, 2013; Jackson, 2018; Sutcliffe & Vogus, 2003). This perspective must be further interpreted through the lens of inequality research. The study illuminates the future of the university as an organization, recognizing the university as a complex social space comprising myths and directly integrating resilience mechanisms within the core concept of legitimacy. The analysis is based on historical examples and the idea of the university as a public good is further entrenched and discussed (Marginson, 2024a).

Literature:

Gilson, E. (2013). The Ethics of Vulnerability: A Feminist Analysis of Social Life and Practice. Routledge.

Jackson, L. (2018). Reconsidering vulnerability in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 24(3), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2018.1439999

Marginson, S. (2024a). Higher Education and Public and Common Good. Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper series, No. 114. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Marginson, S. (2024b). The New Geo-politics of Higher Education 2: Between Nationalism and Globalism. Centre for Global Higher Education Working Paper series, No. 108. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.

Münch, R. (2023). Polarisierte Gesellschaft: Die postmodernen Kämpfe um Identität und Teilhabe (1. Aufl.). Campus Verlag.

Schulze, G. (2011). Krisen: Das Alarmdilemma. S. Fischer.

Sutcliffe, K. M., & Vogus, T. J. (2003). Organizing For Resilience. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Hrsg.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (S. 94–110). Berrett-Koehler.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133