Final Activity Report Summary - EUROTAC (European Universities: Rationales of Tradition and Change)
The fellowship provided a research-intensive period that has raised the potential for and brought into fruition scholarly development and acquisition of methodological skills in the following fields:
a) comparative higher education, essentially within the European context;
b) education policy; and
c) multi case-study research design and analyses.
These outcomes meet the four initial research objectives, two of which had an empirical focus and the two other were aiming at theoretical exploration and elaboration of a framework.
As designed, the research project relied on a strong empirical component that involved qualitative data collection in four countries, namely England, France, Norway and Spain during fieldwork visits of higher education institutions (HEIs). The study included:
- nine institutions presenting various types of new and old, multi-disciplinary, science and technology and specialised technology HEIs enrolling from 5 000 to 45 000 students;
- a variety of subject areas at the Masters level (i.e. psychology, archaeology, pure mathematics, nano-sciences, international health, literature and modern languages, environmental studies, etc.).
During the fieldwork visits, 92 interviews were recorded of more than 92 hours in total. Interviews were conducted in each site (except from the English HEIs) with a wide range of institutional informants, so that the different constituents of a HEI (i.e. academic, bureaucratic, strategic levels and students) describe their practice and how this evolves or is being affected by multi-institutional arrangements related to joint Masters courses and degrees.
Seven focus-groups with students (ten hours of recordings in total) took place whenever the researcher's visit coincided with students studying at the visited institution. In a research design that incorporates country level factors, the policy field at national and supranational levels was also explored. Interviews with officials in ministries or agencies and phone interviews with expert informants from various policy bodies were conducted.
In the field of higher education research, this substantial empirical basis represents an undertaking. Scholars have pointed out that comparative higher education research tends paradoxically to focus on studies of a single country which, once compiled in edited volumes, seem to transcend into some kind of comparative inquiry. Against this background, the fellow opted for a genuine comparative research, despite its complexities and demanding nature. She performed data collection, using a similar methodology and a common theoretical framework that both constitute prerequisites to careful cross-national comparisons. In turn, these can contribute to middle-range theory building by informing about commonalities, differences and context sensible outcomes.
The fellowship provided an opportunity to expand previous areas of scholarship (intercultural learning, student mobility, European policy) to include sociology of (scientific) networks in order to understand forms of collaboration; social sciences of disciplines in order to analyse the academic work in terms of socialisation, boundaries, consensus formation about concepts and evolution of the field, etc.; and finally organisational sociology for analysing issues of power and interests, structures and cultures and activity theory for identifying individual agency in collaborative activities.
The richness of the data and the invaluable time devoted to become acquainted with English-speaking scholarly literature are benefits which constitute an enduring academic capital.
The geographical coverage of the study and its engagement with both the policy field and HEIs, relied on a large number of informants. This group is keenly awaiting the results of this study. Thanks to this network, the research is likely to spur interest and multiply the number of potential recipients of our conclusions.
a) comparative higher education, essentially within the European context;
b) education policy; and
c) multi case-study research design and analyses.
These outcomes meet the four initial research objectives, two of which had an empirical focus and the two other were aiming at theoretical exploration and elaboration of a framework.
As designed, the research project relied on a strong empirical component that involved qualitative data collection in four countries, namely England, France, Norway and Spain during fieldwork visits of higher education institutions (HEIs). The study included:
- nine institutions presenting various types of new and old, multi-disciplinary, science and technology and specialised technology HEIs enrolling from 5 000 to 45 000 students;
- a variety of subject areas at the Masters level (i.e. psychology, archaeology, pure mathematics, nano-sciences, international health, literature and modern languages, environmental studies, etc.).
During the fieldwork visits, 92 interviews were recorded of more than 92 hours in total. Interviews were conducted in each site (except from the English HEIs) with a wide range of institutional informants, so that the different constituents of a HEI (i.e. academic, bureaucratic, strategic levels and students) describe their practice and how this evolves or is being affected by multi-institutional arrangements related to joint Masters courses and degrees.
Seven focus-groups with students (ten hours of recordings in total) took place whenever the researcher's visit coincided with students studying at the visited institution. In a research design that incorporates country level factors, the policy field at national and supranational levels was also explored. Interviews with officials in ministries or agencies and phone interviews with expert informants from various policy bodies were conducted.
In the field of higher education research, this substantial empirical basis represents an undertaking. Scholars have pointed out that comparative higher education research tends paradoxically to focus on studies of a single country which, once compiled in edited volumes, seem to transcend into some kind of comparative inquiry. Against this background, the fellow opted for a genuine comparative research, despite its complexities and demanding nature. She performed data collection, using a similar methodology and a common theoretical framework that both constitute prerequisites to careful cross-national comparisons. In turn, these can contribute to middle-range theory building by informing about commonalities, differences and context sensible outcomes.
The fellowship provided an opportunity to expand previous areas of scholarship (intercultural learning, student mobility, European policy) to include sociology of (scientific) networks in order to understand forms of collaboration; social sciences of disciplines in order to analyse the academic work in terms of socialisation, boundaries, consensus formation about concepts and evolution of the field, etc.; and finally organisational sociology for analysing issues of power and interests, structures and cultures and activity theory for identifying individual agency in collaborative activities.
The richness of the data and the invaluable time devoted to become acquainted with English-speaking scholarly literature are benefits which constitute an enduring academic capital.
The geographical coverage of the study and its engagement with both the policy field and HEIs, relied on a large number of informants. This group is keenly awaiting the results of this study. Thanks to this network, the research is likely to spur interest and multiply the number of potential recipients of our conclusions.