Institutional Culture

University missions and mandates have proliferated over the last decades to take in, among other dimensions, lifelong learning, responsible citizenship and sustainability. Universities have, therefore, come to diversify and differentiate along these lines, building their profiles accordingly to a specific orientation. A recently established institution, for example, whose activities are more connected to the local ecosystem will develop a different public profile to a more historical institution with a strong global outlook. Similarly, some institutions might develop their profile around an explicit focus on fundamental research while others will prioritise innovation and knowledge transfer. Whatever an institution’s orientation, the ambitions of their staff and wider communities are bound up in it, and it will consequently play a central role in shaping institutional culture.

Similar to an institution’s profile and the broad ambitions of its leadership and staff, the overall culture in which a university operates will influence the development of the institution’s own culture. Hierarchies and governance models, for example, can vary dramatically depending on the overarching culture of a country or region and can set the tone for transformation within an institution. These differences – whether stemming from cultural norms, institutional profile or leadership style – are sometimes dismissed or overlooked as important variables in pursuing a transition for the benefit of staff, students and the wider university community.

Institutional culture grows out of a sense of place, community and tradition. Many institutions have long relied on their legacies to perpetuate a sense of permanence. But, in an increasingly competitive environment, institutions are relying on more measurable performance indicators in areas including student recruitment, staff retention and funding.

Universities are increasingly exploiting digital technologies to conduct monitoring, marketing, benchmarking, and strategic foresight. The use of data-driven models to retain a detailed overview of the institution has become a standard practice as a means of identifying opportunities and determining institutional positioning.

Consequently, ‘digital’ has gained prominence in institutional identities and their external presentation. Building digital capacity – whether through digitising administrative procedures and student services, integrating on-campus digital hubs or encouraging digitally-orientated partnerships – has fast become a pre-requisite for the modern institution. For many, it is built into their branding as means of boosting competitiveness and attracting students. Indeed, a well-communicated institutional culture, highlighting digitalisation as its core element, can influence how an institution is perceived publicly. This is illustrated by two German universities emphasising the digital aspect of their offering:

• The Technical University of Wildau established the Wildauer Maschinen Werke as a learning, research and transfer platform for digital skills. Connecting with Brandenburg’s history of car manufacturing, the platform brings together research groups from across disciplines to work on a virtual case study in the context of the vehicle construction industry.
• In an interview with the Vice-President for Teaching and Studies at the University of Vechta, Professor Kim-Patrick Sabla-Dimitrov refers to the universitie’s aim to build its profile as a ‘family-friendly’ university by using digitalisation to create more flexible learning pathways for students with family commitments.

While the merits of digitalisation in strategic decision-making and brand marketing are well known, what has been the impact on institutional culture? In the same way as new technologies change society at large, they also have an impact on institutional cultures. Advancements in the digital space have sparked shifts in the higher education landscape: collaboration initiatives are often brought about by a shared vision to advance digitalisation. This is illustrated by the activities of the HafenCity University in Hamburg, which focuses on climate and digitalisation, and the establishment of the Institute of Digital Sciences Austria (IDSA) — a new technical university for digitalisation and digital transformation.

Another motivation for the establishment of interinstitutional or transnational cooperation initiatives is to create synergies and efficiency through scale, but some would criticise these moves as contributing to the increased standardisation of the higher education landscape. As new working practices emerge to facilitate inter-institutional exchange for the benefit of staff and student communities, does this necessarily lead to the subsumption (or dilution) of individual institutional identities?

Universities have, historically, actively debated the evolution and preservation of culture and heritage in society. It follows, therefore, that an institution’s culture will be shaped by the ecosystem in which it operates and participates. Indeed, the role of universities as places of wonder, curiosity and creativity is set out in Universities without walls – a vision, published by EUA, which emphasises universities’ role as custodians of knowledge and tradition, where culture is created, performed, exhibited, spread and discussed. However, the bricks-and-mortar campus, and the idea of a designated physical space for the academic community, can no longer be assumed as necessary to university operations – at least not in its previous forms and on its previous scales. The increased demand for online and blended forms of learning, combined with the soaring costs of maintaining physical infrastructure, has raised questions for university leaders: is upkeep of the physical campus or development of a virtual campus a better strategic investment? Or: how can physical university spaces be re-purposed and re-adapted to contemporary forms of hybrid learning?

Arguments for maintaining on-campus activity often centre around the importance of human connection for cultivating a sense of community. This very argument has encouraged the development of dedicated initiatives, such as the Framework for a shared culture of well-being, adopted by Bern University of Applied Science, designed to promote a sense of connectedness and togetherness. Development of such initiatives is suggestive of the value placed on community, and the culture that emerges from within communities. This trend also signals a growing realisation that culture, as a critical area of institutional development, requires sustained reflection and investment for communities and individuals to evolve and flourish.

Aspects of the digital transition, such as security, interoperability, openness and compliance, are guided and influenced by policy, be this EU, national and/or institutional policy. Regulatory frameworks, funding structures, procurement systems and the political context will all determine the pace and trajectory of an institution’s transition. Whether these factors differ subtly or dramatically, a one-size-fits-all approach to the sector’s transition cannot account for the varying local conditions in which institutions operate. But as EU-level policy and guidelines, such as those concerning artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, continue in the development phase, institutional culture plays a decisive role in decision-making. What is more, it is this very culture that sets the groundwork for implementation of EU policies and development of institutional policies through a bottom-up and participatory process.

In terms of learning and teaching, the Covid-19 pandemic sparked a cultural shift in the integration of new technologies. As described in an EUA expert voice on rethinking digital opportunities for universities, edtech solutions were no longer viewed as exclusively for the enthusiasts but instead were more widely explored as innovative tools for the enhancement of learning and teaching. However, the accelerated move to remote learning also highlighted the multiplicity of use cases and the need for differentiated approaches depending on discipline, availability of resources and intended learning outcomes, among other factors. What is more, broad-brush policies around digitalisation often fail to recognise that organisational culture is typically made up of subcultures embedded within an institution’s various faculties, units and departments. According to an EUA Thematic Peer Group report on Strategy and organisational culture, this plurality of subcultures can enable or constrain the level of innovation and determine the extent to which new technologies are exploited at a very local level. Digital-related policies are, therefore, best developed to reflect – and allow for – different practices in learning and teaching employed across an institution. The pandemic has also shown that didactics and methodologies play as important a role as digital technologies in delivering positive learning experiences and developing an (institutional) online learning culture.

The pandemic prompted a more collaborative approach to exploring new educational technologies. For many universities, this shift has generated momentum in the wider digital transition. But even where there is strong appetite for change, an institution’s culture and the capacity of its leadership to effectively manage this change are determining factors in the pace and trajectory of transformation.

Notably, the sometimes hasty and top-down nature of decision-making has created a sense of scepticism around the adoption of digital tools. By encouraging dialogue among stakeholders, change managers can understand and address this resistance to change, which is often reported as an inhibiting factor in the transition process. However, cultural change starts with behavioural change, which is often triggered by changes in the roles of individuals. For some institutions, rewarding behavioural change has given impetus to the transition process. In the context of reforming academic careers assessment for example, merit is attributed to undertaking a broader range of academic activities, including engagement with new digital tools. This is illustrated by the Nor Cam initiative, a career assessment matrix developed by Universities Norway.

Conversely, incentivising digital initiatives has also raised questions around the ethics of rewarding behavioural change. Such schemes are criticised for creating inequality of opportunity as, typically, they are not open or applicable to all members of the university community. They are also perceived among critics as driving self-interested (as opposed to public-spirited) exploration and discouraging change of a more organic nature.

Undoubtedly, incentives can be effective mechanisms for mobilising early (and late) adopters of digital solutions. However, to engender a ‘digital mindset’ that promotes broader cultural change, the focus must be on building solutions that make the lives of students, researchers and staff easier. Consequently, and according to the EUA’s expert voice on the human values at the core of digitalisation, transformation of universities must look at both care and connectivity among users as well as efficiency of workflows as key priorities.

However organisational change is approached – whether systematically championed by leadership, driven by bottom-up initiatives or a combination of both – institutional culture will be a determining factor in how it takes hold. The challenge for universities in the transformation process will be to create conditions conducive to change while preserving the much valued, if somewhat intangible, elements of institutional culture.