This study provides insights into student engagement practices in Austrian higher education. By presenting three case studies, we, first, illustrate how student engagement practices vary across Austrian universities, and second, critically reflect upon how those practices can be enhanced to broaden access and inclusion for all.

Within the European context, student engagement is mainly conceptualised as part of the community engagement and civic involvement of universities. This understanding has emerged from several developments – such as the Bologna Process, the European Union’s funding and mobility programmes, widening participation of under-represented and vulnerable student groups – that have contributed to a shifting of the (self-)image of universities and facilitated an ongoing debate about universities’ role and responsibilities in society (Resch & Fellner, 2022). It is argued that universities should deliberately contribute to society by addressing specific needs through civic involvement of students and staff. Therefore, strengthening the civic engagement of students (e.g., via student engagement practices) is seen as an integral part of universities’ societal contribution (Fellner et al., 2022).

While there are multiple efforts to strengthen student engagement at the European level (e.g., via Erasmus+ projects dedicated to this topic, European networks and initiatives such as GUNI network (Global University Network for Innovation) or the European Association of Service-Learning in Higher Education), and at the national as well as institutional level (e.g., through Third Mission strategies), little research focuses on whether all student groups have access to student engagement practices and whether they are able to equally participate in and benefit from such practices. From a student equity perspective, asking such questions is highly relevant, since not all students stand to benefit equally from engagement, especially regarding extra-curricular activities (Winstone et al., 2022). Furthermore, student engagement is seen as crucial in terms of student retention and success (Tight, 2020).

Already a decade ago, scholars such as Butin (2010) argued that “[t]he overarching presumption is that the students doing the service-learning are white, sheltered, middle-class, single, without children, unindebted, and between the ages 18 and 24“ (p. 31). However, these characteristics do not apply (anymore) to the majority of the Austrian student population (Lessky & Unger, 2022). In addition, participating in student engagement activities often requires financial and time resources that might be limited to students from equity groups due to their responsibilities outside of university (e.g., term-time employment. caring obligations, etc.).

Our research tackles this concern by investigating the following research questions: (1) How are student engagement practices designed across the Austrian higher education sector?, and (2) How do these practices enable or hinder the participation of students from equity groups?

To address these questions, we analyse case studies of student engagement practices at three Austrian universities. Our data is based upon two Erasmus+ projects that have been financed by the European Commission (The ‘Students as Digital Civic Engagers’ project and the ‘Service-learning in Higher Education’ project). The cases include the ‘Intercultural Mentoring for Schools Project’ at the University of Vienna, the ‘Student Projects for Caritas’ at the University of Klagenfurt and the module ‘Renovation and Revitalisation’ at the University for Continuing Education Krems. Based on semi-structured interviews with students, programme coordinators and lecturers as well as official documents (e.g., course descriptions and universities’ mission statements), we apply a case study methodology to analyse the student engagement practices (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2003). The selected cases provide a maximum of variation according to (1) the size of the universities and the socio-economic characteristics of their student population, and (2) the level of institutionalisation and the amount of students’ power in co-designing the practices.

The analysis shows that one major factor for students to participate in engagement practices is their personal connection to the content of the respective practice. For example, most of the students in the ‘Intercultural Mentoring for Schools Project’ felt a personal connection with the migrant children they support. This perceived connection is based on their own biographical experiences with migration, which is why they were keen to dedicate extra time in addition to their regular study programme. Moreover, the findings reveal that elective courses on civic engagement, as demonstrated by the ‘Student Projects for Caritas’, are especially appreciated by students who are not yet very familiar with civic engagement and are interested in applied coursework. Furthermore, results indicate that the students’ say in co-designing engagement practices varies along the degree of institutionalisation, showing that those practices with a higher level of institutionalisation (e.g., the mandatory module ‘Renovation and Revitalisation’ at the University for Continuing Education Krems) provide less opportunities for students to co-create the respective practices. However, from an equity perspective, highly institutionalised practices provide broader access for diverse student groups, since they are scaffolded within the curriculum. The paper closes by reflecting how engagement practices can be designed to provide access and to be beneficial for all students, especially in a changing university environment vastly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This requires innovative ways of strengthening student engagement, for example via digital civic engagement (Freudhofmayer & Resch, forthcoming).

Butin, D. W. (2010). Service-Learning in Theory and Practice. The Future of Community Engagement in Higher Education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Fellner, M., Rusu, A. S., & Pausits, A. (2022). Facets of Service Learning in Higher Education: A Cross-Case Analysis of Diverging Conceptualizations. In Role of Education and Pedagogical Approach in Service Learning. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 95-111. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. Freudhofmayer, S., & Resch, K. (forthcoming). Digital Civic Engagement. Case studies in the Interplay Between Civic Engagement, Student Voice and Digitalization of Higher Education. In Conner, J.; Gauthier, L.; Guzmán Valenzuela, C. & Raaper, R. (eds.) Bloomsbury Handbook of Student Voice in Higher Education. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Resch, K.; Fellner, M. (2022). European and Austrian perspectives on service-learning. In Rodríguez-Izquierdo, R.M. (ed.). Service Learning at a glance. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp.63-80. Lessky, F., & Unger, M. (2022). Working long hours while studying: a higher risk for First-in-Family students and students of particular fields of study? European Journal of Higher Education, 1-20. Tight, M. (2020). Student retention and engagement in higher education. Journal of further and Higher Education, 44(5), 689-704. Winstone, N., Balloo, K., Gravett, K., Jacobs, D., & Keen, H. (2022). Who stands to benefit? Wellbeing, belonging and challenges to equity in engagement in extra-curricular activities at university. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 81-96. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd Edition. California: Sage Publications.