Values

Universities, as places of higher learning, are historically – and perhaps inherently – values-driven. And in terms of realising their missions and visions, the experiences of higher education institutions have highlighted the merits of anchoring institutional strategies in a set of clearly defined values. But this is one of the more nuanced dimensions of the conversation. What exactly is the place of values in designing strategies? In broad terms, values might be understood as core principles that guide decision-making in the transformation process. Data sovereignty, knowledge security, openness, transparency, sustainability, efficiency, inclusivity, diversity and accessibility are often cited as dimensions of the transition that are underpinned by more fundamental university values such as institutional autonomy and freedom of thought. However, the extent to which these principles are prioritised and upheld is heavily contingent on the differentiated and evolving contexts in which universities operate. The virtues of openness, for example, as an overarching value in the transition process, might not be disputed among European Union higher education communities. But in practice, this concept will be harder to pursue for an institution facing increased competition for students, inadequate regulatory frameworks and an upward trend in the commodification of higher education.

Similarly, the means by which values are operationalised will vary depending on institutional culture, including its vision and strategy and the priorities of its leadership. Change management theory points to the benefits of rooting transformation in a core set of values. But, however robust the value system, subtleties in interpretation can lead to diverging approaches – both across and within institutions – in operationalising these core values. The multiple and varied interpretations of ‘inclusivity’ serve to illustrate this. For some, widening participation through the provision of online or blended learning is a move towards a more inclusive learning model – a model in which the advantages of onsite engagement can, potentially, be replicated in the digital realm. For others, inclusive learning should necessarily entail access to a physical space and the less quantifiable benefits of university education that come from on-campus interaction with peers.

Values are, thus, neither permanent nor universal. Diverging or evolving understandings of what constitutes a value or virtue mean that the behaviours they shape manifest differently depending on the context.

Whatever their definition or interpretation, prevailing wisdom would suggest that values can be neither imposed nor prescribed. Rather, institutions should be largely autonomous in determining their core values. That said, a common understanding of their merits might, in some instances, create more conducive conditions for embedding values in everyday practice.

Increasingly, institutional values are determined through a consultative process involving staff and student communities and, in some cases, a wider network of partners and stakeholder. Undeniably, there are merits to this approach. Finding common ground can lay the foundations for a robust values system that is largely consensual. Additionally, opening dialogue channels to vested parties – as opposed to imposing top-down decisions – cultivates a sense of ownership and empowerment in the transition process. In the long run, this means institutions are more likely to reap the benefits of active and engaged communities. What is more, adopting a more democratic approach to defining a shared values system adds an additional dimension to the role of leadership, who must be equipped to navigate the diverse interests and needs of an increasingly enfranchised university community.

Establishing a shared set of values is one significant step in generating collective buy-in. But embedding these principles within change processes presents quite a different challenge for university leaders. The task of building values into everyday practice can often highlight their sometimes conflictual nature.

Take ‘efficiency’ as an example – often acknowledged as the underlying principle in streamlining workflows and improving the provision of services. Few people would argue against the efficient use of public resources in the digitalisation of services. But is efficiency necessarily compatible with openness, as a value? Possibly not, if implementation of open solutions means compromising on stability and efficiency in everyday interaction with digital tools. In practical terms, this means that institutions will often have to weigh the advantages of an open, public or self-hosted cloud (that might not meet the demands for fast synchronisation and scale) against the disadvantages of relying on commercial providers (whose solutions will most often meet these demands).

Ultimately, the question is to what extent efficiency should be preserved as a guiding principle if it compromises, for example, a more ethical, participatory approach to integrating new technologies. The same might be asked in relation to the (in)compatibility of excellence and inclusivity – not necessarily mutually exclusive as concepts but often difficult to pursue with equal intent within higher education and research missions.

Often, it is the role of university leadership to reconcile potential dissonances between core values – understanding where there might be necessary trade-off and navigating these conflicts to continue driving the process forward. A shared set of values – however these are defined or redefined – can reinforce a university’s mission and vision and strengthen its profile and positioning in an increasingly competitive environment.

Universities are tightly woven into the fabric of society. Institutional missions and visions should, therefore, reflect public interest and values. Humanistic and democratic ideals pursued in European and other societies provide a firm basis for universities to engage in current debates around changing value systems. And indeed, discourse around establishing values frameworks often references universities’ third mission: in essence, the “targeted use and transfer of academic knowledge to help resolve current societal and economical challenges” and the “transfer and utilisation of technologies and innovations through cooperation with public and private enterprises”, as defined by the Central European Network for Teaching and Research in Academic Liaison. The latter part of this definition highlights the unique position of universities, which – as both drivers and beneficiaries of technological innovation – must co-exist, and more importantly, cooperate with a wider network of stakeholders in the digital space. And in the spirit of this cooperation, universities can continue to play a leading role in the development of digital technologies, acting as champions for their ethical and beneficial implementation in society.

Change is a layered process, contingent on cooperation between multiple stakeholders. A shared value system is, therefore, key in building fruitful partnerships. But what happens when stakeholder interests are not aligned? The question is heavily debated in the interplay between higher education institutions and commercial providers of technical infrastructure. Universities are well placed to maximise industry innovation to advance their digital strategies and indeed, a collaborative approach can yield rewards for the mutual benefit of both the higher education sector and industry providers. However, the issue becomes contentious when an over-reliance on commercial solutions compromises an institution’s integrity and core values. More broadly, it might be argued that a power imbalance which promotes the dominance of commercial providers in the digital space could jeopardise the foundational principles of higher education.

Optimising partnerships and stakeholder relationships – be these with publishers, private benefactors, employers, national ministries or policymakers – can be a powerful vehicle for advancing university missions. But, equally, pursuing a values-driven transformation can often be constrained by the agendas of external stakeholders and developments in an evolving policy landscape. Operating in increasingly networked and complex ecosystems, the responsibility of universities in defending and promoting democratic ideals becomes more apparent and, perhaps, more challenging. This raises fundamental questions around the role of universities in the wider digital ecosystem: who should be driving the debate on the ethical development and use of digital technologies, such as generative AI? Is this the responsibility of universities? And should it necessarily involve partnerships with industry and civil society?

Laying the policy foundations for successfully navigating the digital transition requires a human-centred approach, whereby communities – including university leaders, administrators and learners – are empowered to tackle the challenges and embrace the opportunities inherent in any change process. A solid legal framework, in the first instance, protects citizens and safeguards societal values against the apparent risks of a fast-moving digital landscape. Most importantly, guidance at EU-level, illustrated, for example, by the EU’s Declaration on Digital rights and principles for the Digital Decade (based on principles such solidarity, freedom of choice, participation, safety and sustainability and human-centredness) lays the foundations for empowering digital initiatives at a more local level.

The university perspective on the NIS-2 Cybersecurity Directive presents an interesting case: the Directive seeks to bolster cybersecurity in the EU by ensuring high levels of security for sensitive sectors, thereby implementing the principle of safety. This will have impact on universities as they conduct specific types of research – health-related as an example – which are deemed sensitive and therefore subject to requirements stipulated in the EU Directive. Similarly, the EU’s AI act takes in levels of risk classification based on the principle of being human-centric, classifying use of AI at different risk levels based on the impact of people’s lives.

As the rate of change in the digital space accelerates, the long-term impact of transformative technologies on higher education and research becomes harder to anticipate. Designing fit-for-purpose regulation is one sure way to mitigate the risks associated with the misuse and abuse of new technologies. But as the rate of technological innovation far outpaces the development of robust legislation, the regulatory environment becomes opaque. By placing values at the centre of digital strategies, universities can come out as frontrunners in the responsible and democratic integration of new technologies and serve as exemplars for ethical adoption of digital tools in society.