As you know, this show is dedicated to a global perspective on higher education; one that tries to encompass the entire globe. But covering the entire planet is difficult. There are a lot of countries out there, and there are very few trends which are truly universal. That means you need to track lots of developments and policies that are overlapping, complicated and contradictory — and that’s hard! I know — I’ve been writing our World Higher Education, Year in Review publication (out on December 3rd) and trust me, it’s a brutal task.
But for the past year or so, another group has been trying its hand at something similar. The group is called the Global Observatory on Higher Education Changes, or GOHEC. It’s a collaboration between researchers from 15 countries, including some figures familiar to faithful podcast listeners like Romulo Pinheiro and Isak Frumin, and it is specifically devoted to answering the question what is new in higher education? The group’s first annual report was published a couple of months ago as a special issue of the Journal of Research and Innovation in Higher Education.
Today our guest is Attila Pausits. He is Professor of Higher Education Research and Development, and Head of the Department for Higher Education Research at the University for Continuing Education in Krems, Austria and he is one of the ringleaders of this group. In the show today we talk about what goes into making a truly global report like this, what the findings were for this year and what kinds of trends we might see in the future.
But enough from me – let’s hear from Attila.
The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 4.11 | A Global Observatory for Higher Education Change: What We’re Learning
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU) Attila, tell us about this new report and the idea behind the Global Observatory on Change in Higher Education. What gap were you hoping to fill in the way that we study higher education globally?
Attila Pausits (AP): Well, the idea of the Global Observatory on Higher Education Change — or GOHEC, as we call it — grew out of a network of exchange established during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the global higher education community was confronted with sudden disruptions. At that time, colleagues like Isak Frumin and Simon Marginson, among others, were thinking about how to capture those transformations and also understand their longer-term implications for how higher education systems function.
I consider this initiative important because higher education research itself is at a crossroads. The way in which we study, fund, and communicate scholarship is changing, and we need to ask fundamental questions about the role, purpose, and mission of higher education research in the future.
With this conviction, I was able to secure initial seed funding from my university and from the Austrian government to establish this observatory and coordinate the international network behind it. I’m very thankful to Isman especially, who is a strong supporter, as well as all the colleagues who are engaged and committed to working with us, including my colleagues at the Department of Education Research at my university.
The gap we are trying to address is the absence of a comprehensive and timely perspective on changes in higher education worldwide. While there are many excellent publications focusing on particular issues such as governance, funding, or digitalization, there is no global platform to monitor and interpret change across these domains in a systematic way. Over time, we hope GOHEC will provide an increasingly comprehensive, comparative, and accessible perspective on global transformation in higher education.
So basically, this is the story behind GOHEC.
AU: Why is it so important to shift from describing systems to observing change as it happens? I mean, one of the problems with just observing change is that if you’re doing that alone, apart from the deeper description of systems, sometimes you miss what exactly is being changed. So why the shift?
AP: Well, I think there have been a number of great contributions toward longitudinal studies and time series. But what I’m often missing is the translation of these findings into insights that are directly usable for policymakers, institutions, and other stakeholders — the clients of our work, so to speak.
Simply describing how systems look at a given moment is not enough. What’s more interesting is how they evolve, transform, and respond to emerging challenges. Change, by definition, involves movement, and that’s something you can’t capture with a snapshot approach without looking at progress over time.
From the perspective of higher education research, studying systems without considering their development makes very little sense. This kind of transformational perspective is really needed. But the way our work is currently funded, and the way academic areas are structured, often limits our ability to pursue sustained and dynamic observation.
And being a higher education researcher — academia remains limited in how much we can do, and we would like to do more.
AU: Most observatories tend to focus on national systems or regional systems, or maybe they focus on a particular slice of higher education. You’re trying to look at all of higher education and you’re adopting a global perspective. Obviously that’s very challenging. But what are the insights that only become visible when you observe change across borders rather than within single countries? What’s the payoff for all that extra work?
AP: I mean, I could simply answer that we like challenges — but I think there’s a bit more to it. The global perspective allows us to see patterns and interdependencies that remain invisible within national or regional boundaries. Many of the forces reshaping higher education today, such as — and I’m sure we’ll talk about this later — geopolitical tensions or demographic shifts, are transnational in nature. Yet they manifest differently across contexts.
Observing these dynamics globally reveals how similar pressures produce divergent institutional responses depending on governance traditions, policy frameworks, and academic cultures. That’s where our work becomes really interesting. By comparing systems side by side, we can identify emerging trends, but also map asymmetries and vulnerabilities.
This makes it possible not only to monitor change but to understand how global drivers are shaping local realities, and where early signals of transformation might emerge. And that is a real challenge — it requires dedicated methodologies and a particular perspective from the individuals contributing to the network and the observatory.
I’m not saying this will all happen within our first year, but that should be the goal for the observatory over time.
AU: I understand you used some AI-assisted text analysis to do that. What methods did you use?
AP: Well, I think today almost everyone is looking at AI and either researching it or trying to use it for their own research. So at GOHEC, we see great value in combining these AI tools with human expertise.
For example — and this is a bit of a spoiler — we used AI-assisted text analysis to map higher education research centres and programs globally, and that work will be published early next year. These methods help us detect growth patterns and emerging trends across large datasets — essentially, the signal of change that might otherwise remain hidden.
But without our international network, and without the interpretation and validation of these data, we could easily introduce errors. So this combination is essential. Human insight provides depth, nuance, and meaning to the story behind the data.
And just to come back to the idea of mapping higher education research centres: this work builds on the efforts of the International Center for Higher Education at Boston College, which has contributed greatly in this area. In a sense, we’ve taken over the idea of a global inventory of higher education research centres and programs. And given our limited resources, AI has made a significant contribution in helping us map the evolution and development of these centres and programs in recent years.
AU: Let’s turn to what you actually found in your work. Looking across all the 2024 data and the regional analyses, what were the most significant or surprising changes you observed worldwide?
AP: Well, I think one of the most striking developments in 2024 is the acceleration of digital transformation initiatives — particularly the integration of AI into teaching, administration, research, and operations across different regions. For example, we see this clearly in Japan and South Korea.
Another significant shift is the reorientation of internationalization strategies. While earlier waves pushed student volume and mobility, many European systems are now moving toward more selective, values-based partnerships and resilience frameworks.
Somewhat surprisingly — and I think you have discussed this in this podcast as well — we also see a trend of increasing political and regulatory interventions in higher education systems, especially in the U.S. and in some Central and Eastern European countries. These developments challenge longstanding assumptions about institutional autonomy.
AU: One of the report’s key contributions, I think, is the typology of change — from governance reforms and funding models to, as you say, digital transformation and internationalization. Which of these was most unexpected? I mean, digitization we probably knew about; internationalization we probably knew about. You could have known those without doing quite that much work. What was the unexpected stuff?
AP: I think, in fact, it was the speed of change. We know that higher education institutions — besides the church and the military — are among the oldest organizational forms on earth. But in this case, the rapid uptake of AI, for example, the introduction of AI guidelines in Japan, and institutional restructuring around digital and data governance signal a deeper, more systemic shift rather than just incremental change.
Governance and funding model shifts also featured strongly, and that’s a very interesting dynamic — particularly where state actors are tightening institutional budgets and research funding mechanisms. So overall, I would say the unexpected part is really the speed at which all of this is happening.
AU: People say universities can’t change, but I guess they do. In addition to the global picture you provide, you’ve got a series of regional briefs. What were the most striking contrasts you saw between regions — say, between East Asia and Europe or North America?
AP: Of course, I would recommend that you read the publication, because in a nutshell I can’t really cover everything here in just a couple of minutes. But I can give a few directions.
In East Asia, the key focus was on leveraging technology and responding to population shifts — for example, AI integration and strategic internationalization tied to demographic decline.
In Europe, the trends are more values-oriented. While internationalization remains important, the framing is shifting toward ethical partnerships, micro-credentials, and digital transitions, alongside concerns about academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
In North America — especially in the U.S. — we see market-driven patterns, increased political interference, and equity, inclusion, and diversity issues, which we all know about. There is also this ideological regulation, which stands in contrast to the more multilateral, collaborative models in Europe and the tech-driven strategies in East Asia.
AU: The report emphasizes the importance of detecting early signals of change before they consolidate. Are there any examples of weak signals from 2024 that may point to more significant shifts in the years ahead?
AP: That’s a very interesting question. If I had a crystal ball in front of me, maybe I could tell you a bit more — but perhaps I can mention one.
One weak signal we picked up in the report is the intensification of funding reallocation in national systems. This might lead not only to stronger signals of change over time but also to a more fundamental discussion about new public management. These shifts could prompt broader debates about the governance tools used in the past, such as performance agreements.
More broadly, I think there should be — and already is — a debate about new public management as a conceptual framework for higher education. It has shaped policy for the last two decades or so, but given the dynamics and speed of change, we may need to ask whether new public management is still the appropriate governance tool.
So this could become a more fundamental discussion about the tools and instruments we all know — and whether those instruments will still serve us in the future.
AU: This is GOHEC’s first report, and you describe it as a kind of pilot for the observatory’s broader mission. What are your priorities for the next phase? Are there going to be methodological or conceptual changes next year, either in the next report or as the observatory continues to evolve?
AP: We’re eager to gather feedback from the community — from colleagues, our networks, and the various clients of the observatory. But I think there are at least three goals, even in the short run.
One is, as you mentioned, the consolidation of a methodological framework. In the first report, we used a geographic dimension and tried to organize topics around specific regions. I think the goal now is to expand our coverage beyond the regions included in the pilot by incorporating more robust data from areas that were underrepresented, such as Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East — all of which are very interesting regions with significant developments.
We also tend to sit here in Austria and look toward Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Australia. That perspective needs to be broadened in our future work. This expansion will require new regional partnerships and experts so that GOHEC can systematically reflect the global diversity of higher education over time.
The ambition is for GOHEC to evolve into an early warning and foresight platform — capable of detecting structural shifts before they consolidate and perhaps even informing both policy and institutional strategy worldwide. I know that’s a demanding and challenging goal, but why not aim high?
And as someone who started this conversation with a bit of criticism of higher education research — being a higher education researcher myself — I want to say that the evolution of the field over time, including journals, publications, and knowledge production, has been impressive. But we should also look at our different clients. We shouldn’t only look back; we should look ahead. Policymakers are interested not only in reading about the past but in understanding the future. And perhaps that should be part of the future mission and strategy of GOHEC in the years to come.
AU: Attila, thanks so much for being with us today.
AP: Thank you. It was a pleasure.
AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and you, our listeners and readers, for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Join us next week when our guest will be Rob Annan. Rob is President and CEO of Genome Canada, and he’ll be joining us to talk about developments in global science and science policy in Canada. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
