The adoption of digital tools continues apace across the higher education and research sectors. The power of new technologies to solve specific problems is, largely, undisputed. But increasingly, universities and their communities are calling for exploration of holistic approaches – backed at the political level – that allow for the ethical and responsible adoption of digital technologies in society.
But regulating the digital space has become an increasingly complex task. The EU’s Declaration on Digital rights and principles for the Digital Decade, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Service Act, and the forthcoming Artificial Intelligence Act all seek to make activity in the digital sphere safer, more democratic and human-centric. But, as the rate of technological advancement accelerates, stakeholder agendas begin to multiply and diverge. It is often the task of policymakers, who sit at the nexus of stakeholder influence, to align the priorities of government and industry with the interests of advocacy groups and ultimately, citizens, as users of digital technologies.
The string of recent EU-level regulation, while well-intentioned in its aim to protect citizens by setting boundaries in the digital space, often overlooks the unique role occupied by universities in the digital transformation. As institutions whose missions are rooted in public values and as hubs for technological innovation, universities are well positioned to set the tone for transitions within their wider ecosystems. It is critical, therefore, that both policy and policymakers recognise the actual and potential role of universities in shaping societal-level transformation.
Action and guidance on implementation – the need for open, sustained dialogue
The European Strategy for Universities, published in 2022, highlights this central role played by universities in leading the digital transition. It urges member states to support the development of digital skills of students, staff and researchers, and invest in the digital capacity of universities. This call-to-action from the European Commission resonates with the overarching ambitions and priorities set out in institutional visions and strategies. But how can policies be enacted to support (rather than inhibit) achievement of these broad goals? And what is the role of policymakers in guiding the process?
Top-down mandates requiring universities to adhere to new regulatory standards can often precipitate a fear of non-compliance, dampening excitement around integration of new technologies. Regulatory frameworks, therefore, are sometimes perceived as instruments which limit autonomy and slow the pace of institutional transformation. Policymakers, in their function as conduits between the regulators and the ‘regulated’, can play a key role in countering this (mis)perception. By opening channels for dialogue, policymakers can seek to understand the impact of regulatory changes at an institutional level, foster a two-directional approach to implementation, and seek to support and guide universities in navigating new regulation.
The formulation of fit-for-purpose regulation is only one – albeit essential – part of the policymaking process. In seeking to monitor and govern developments in the digital landscape, it has become increasingly apparent that the conversation between policymakers and sector actors does not (and should not) end once a new piece of regulation is launched. Rather, sustained and systematic dialogue is essential to implementing policies that are actionable within a spectrum of contexts and importantly, sufficiently flexible to keep pace with the rate of technological advancement.
Open regulatory frameworks as an enabler of bottom-up initiatives (the ‘two-pronged’ approach)
For some university representatives, the often opaque and inapplicable nature of recent regulation presents an argument for more targeted, sector-specific regulation. They reason that rules made outside the sector can be challenging to interpret for universities – both in terms of defining responsibilities around compliance and, in the case of the NIS-2 Cybersecurity Directive, for example, determining which ‘critical’ areas of university activity it applies to. For others, however, this ambiguity highlights a need for more broad and flexible frameworks that can be adopted to suit the local context and support the agendas of individual institutions.
According to conclusions presented in EUA’s 2023 Autonomy Scorecard, flexible regulatory frameworks, as well as adequate investment and sufficient institutional autonomy, are key factors in building agility and enabling universities to pool resources. Sector representatives in favour of a more open and dynamic regulatory environment argue that this model encourages creativity within and across institutions in finding ‘bottom-up’ solutions – solutions that are guided by (and respect) a set of commonly-agreed ‘top-down’ principles, rather than a series of strictly-mandated rules.
Interoperability, for example, is one core – and complex – dimension of the digital transformation that might benefit from this ‘two-pronged approach,’ i.e., an EU-level reference map that serves as a framework for the development of grassroots-led initiatives. Often cited as a key factor in the long-term sustainability of digital-led initiatives, interoperability is a fundamental priority for both institutions and governments. While most policymakers might share this view, few will understand the technical side of achieving interoperable solutions. Such a priority, therefore, might be better advanced via this ‘two-pronged’ approach, whereby universities can reap the benefits of autonomous decision-making while still adhering to a set of commonly held principles.
Articulating the sector’s priorities and identifying university ‘champions’
A coherent EU policy agenda can only be achieved if policymakers are presented with the full (and nuanced) picture of universities’ challenges and priorities. But the proliferation of voices and increasing fragmentation within the sector can sometimes obscure the common purpose. While the role of policymakers is not to force consensus among these established and emerging voices, there is often scope within their remit to encourage sectoral cohesion.
To optimise influence in shaping public policy on digitalisation, universities and their representative bodies at national and EU level need to focus on common priorities. While no two institutions’ transformation trajectories are identical, there are challenges and concerns – interoperability, cybersecurity, data sovereignty, as examples – that are shared across all systems. These are priorities that require joint solutions and where development of related policy is enhanced by opening discussion fora to include a range of university perspectives as well as a suite of sectoral actors.
By encouraging representativeness in the process, policymakers can play a critical role in cultivating a cooperative – rather than a siloed – approach to policy development. National and European university associations, individual institutions, research centres, quality assurance networks, student advocates, or representatives from the IT sector, for example, are all parties with vested interests, and their contribution is critical in steering the wider debate around the sector’s transformation. Similarly, by building connections beyond their local systems, universities, particularly those in countries with less political weight, are better positioned to have their voices heard by policymakers.
Articulating the sector’s view early – and consistently – in the lifecycle of the policymaking process is key to ensuring the fundamentals of regulation are aligned with the sector’s priorities. Contributing cohesive input to the consultation process adds weight to the sector’s position and often, affords advocacy groups the leverage to cultivate relationships with individual policymakers sympathetic to the interests of universities. In practice, a more coordinated response from the sector better equips these university ‘champions’ to advocate for robust and implementable policies that filter into national programmes and ensure favourable conditions for advancing university missions.
Transformation as a long-term, values-based investment
According to findings presented in EUA’s 2022 Public Funding Observatory, institutional-level investment in digitalisation is frequently motivated by the pursuit of greater operational efficiencies. At the political level, funding for digitalisation looks to harness universities’ capacity to close the skills gap, fuel the economy and drive technological leadership. While the integration of digital technologies for the purpose of streamlining workflows or building digital competences is not to be discouraged, policymakers need to consistently reflect on the social dimensions of sectoral transformation – its potential to narrow the digital divide, widen participation in higher education and foster a culture of knowledge co-creation and sharing.
The sector’s approach to, and capacity for, transformation has a broader impact on the nature of societal-level transformation. Indeed, conclusions from EUA’s 2022 Public Funding Observatory show that European funding enables universities to support general societal progress in the transitions towards greener and more digital environments. What is more, evidence from an EUA survey report on universities as drivers as innovation ecosystems points to the environmental, ethical and social impacts of the digital transition as common concerns for university communities. By addressing these concerns, policymakers can change the discourse. They can shift thinking away from the idea of digitalisation as an efficiency-driven, goal-orientated exercise and advocate for policies that, instead, reflect the nature of transformation as an unremitting priority that should be guided by public values.
.
