Editorial

Over the past decade, the world and higher education have been facing many challenges. Increased political and economic instability combined with ecological challenges have resulted in a massive flow of emigrants and refugees, from and within the Middle East, Africa, Central America, South America, as well as Asia. Climate change is experienced everywhere. And new emerging powers, in particular China, challenge the traditional dominance of North America and Europe. These developments have created an increased awareness of the need for Sustainable Development Goals as defined by the United Nations to guarantee the future of our planet but also of overcoming inequality. But they have also resulted in increased political tensions between nations, and in the rise of nationalism and populism, manifested in anti-globalism, climate change denial, anti-immigration and xenophobia.

In higher education, increased massification and the demands of the global knowledge economy have resulted in a much more academically and institutionally differentiated array of higher education institutions. New and successful research universities in Asia compete with the still dominant European and Anglospheric universities. Commercial rationales have strengthened for many internationally oriented higher education institutions, competing globally for top scholars, top students, access to high impact journals, research funding, as well as leading positions in the global rankings.

Given these decadal transitions, it is difficult to predict what the next 10 years will bring, to the world and to its higher education. Will nationalism and populism continue rising, and will they further affect higher education? Or will higher education take a lead in addressing the key needs for the future such as the Sustainable Development Goals, perhaps also putting less emphasis on financial returns. We see some signs emerging, such as the movement towards Open Access and Open Science, the rewarding of teaching on more equal terms with research as seriously discussed in the Netherlands, a willingness to meet the real costs of access, the challenging of English-dominance in research and teaching, increased demand for gender and cultural equity in leadership and top research positions, internationalisation at home, global learning for all and collaborative online international learning as a mass alternative to the mobility of a small elite. As such, we see many efforts by higher education to rethink its role and responsibilities as anchor institutions engaging more actively and purposefully with their cities and regions and with other societal actors including myriad educational providers (primary, secondary, VET/TVET, etc.). These are all important policy issues that require an evidence-based research agenda.

In Issue 1 of Volume 3 (March 2019) of Policy Reviews in Higher Education, Hamish Coates (2019), Consulting Editor of the journal, described eight tactics for writing papers that have an influence on decision-making on higher education policy, such as selecting major policy problems, aiming at making a difference, concentrating on consequences, referring to practice, and thinking about research as an instrument of change.

Joint Editors Ellen Hazelkorn and William Locke in their editorial for Issue 2 of 2019, made clear that the aim for this journal is that it makes a significant contribution to making policy as well as understanding and scrutinising policy. Quite a lot of time is spent in encouraging potential contributing authors to seriously consider the policy implications of their evidence and the ideas in their articles. They emphasised that:

thinking about a policy issue from this perspective before you start writing can help you to frame the question or problem in a way that may, ultimately, gain more traction with those who determine policy and strategy. But it also helps to start thinking about undertaking policy or evidenced based research from the start. (Hazelkorn and Locke 2019, 122)

And they continued:

Thus, whether thinking about your research, writing it up or talking to policymakers about their priorities, consider the significance of the topic. To what extent is it addressing real needs of society and government, what impact would you like to have? Think also about what the consequences of your argument or revelations might be for who and how.

What support can we, as an editorial team, provide to authors to accomplish a successful submission in line with this approach? Policy Reviews in Higher Education is not only different in scope and content to other education journals, it is also unique in its approach with regard to submissions. Where other journals review only completed manuscripts, resulting in acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection, this journal recommends that you submit a proposal for an article. We have a four-step process for submission. This process aims to help authors in the successful development and submission of their articles. Step One is the submission of a Review Proposal of no more than 500 words. We are not expecting to receive unsolicited full papers at this stage. Step Two is the evaluation of the Review Proposal. On the basis of the Review Proposal, we may make suggestions for revising the Proposal or invite a full paper. Step Three is the invitation to author(s) to prepare a full article (8–12,000 words). And Step Four is the submission of a full article for peer review.

The advantage of this process is mutual. For the editorial team, it helps in the editorial planning of future issues and quality assurance. More importantly, for the authors, it helps them to focus, obtain advice at an early stage and offers greater likelihood of acceptance. Sometimes we receive an already complete manuscript for review. In itself there is no objection to this, but we will review it as if it were a Review Proposal and follow the same four steps. Both the editorial team and the external reviewers will provide guidance on revision of the paper for full acceptance. As with other peer-reviewed journals, the external peer review is decisive on acceptance, but the four steps process provides better guidance and support to achieve acceptance as well as better alignment with the scope and mission of the journal.

Examples of this can be found in previous issues of the journal, but also in the articles published in this Issue 1 of Volume 4:

Using social network analysis and multimedia critical discourse analysis and the concepts of mediatisation and celebrification, Michelle Stack argues that the metrics used to determine world-classness re-entrench who is seen as a scholarly and administrative leader in higher education and what is considered world-class knowledge. She highlights the cognitive dissonance of universities promoting spurious media-based metrics, while at the same time claiming a commitment to equity policies and practices.

Stacey Young and colleagues examine the compatibility of two policy goals in Ontario, Canada, through the lens of organisational theory: greater institutional differentiation and the expansion of student pathways. Employing a review of the literature and document analysis, they compare and contrast the various strategies used to achieve these public policy goals and seek to highlight current successful institutional strategies that could be used in other jurisdictions.

Drawing on a framework of pluri-scalar governance of education, Aliandra Lazzari Barlete seeks to analyse the policy trajectory of the European Union (EU) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Higher Education Common Area, which includes 60 HE systems. She highlights the defining role of the EU in shaping the inter-regional dialogue in terms of a regional mandate and actorness, particularly since the launch of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2011.

Andreas Stage investigates the extent to which the convergence of external conditions for higher education institutions in five countries has been mirrored by restructuring within universities. He does this by systematically comparing staff changes over more than a decade in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Norway and Denmark. In particular, he focuses on the proliferation of temporary academic staff and the professionalisation of administrative/ managerial staff.

The weak conceptualisation of graduates’ employability in higher education is addressed by Heike Behle. She proposes a holistic framework for classifying and measuring specific initiatives to enhance the employability of students and graduates. The examples of Germany and England show how differences in employability occur due to differences in the surrounding labour market. The paper concludes that, in a sophisticated and holistic discussion, it is necessary to highlight the various indicators in order to understand the more nuanced aspects of employability.