European polity is largely based on the working of the EU institutions which all have their specific role in forming laws, policy, and regulation. The EU Treaties give limited legal competence for EU in the higher education field. The EU's role in higher education is primarily through funding and policy recommendations, lacking legislative authority. However, higher education intersects with research, innovation, and economic policies where the EU has more influence. Significant funding comes from Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. For this reason, it is easy to argue that higher education is a central element in EU policymaking.

Higher education policy scholars have noted the arising importance of EU in higher education, especially since the Lisbon Treaty gave EU supporting competence in education (Vukasović et al. 2019). In educational research, the EU powers in higher education have been understood through the Open Method of Coordination (Lawn & Grek 2012), political processes over the European Education Area (Alexiadou and Rambla 2023), economic steering tools (Eeva 2021), and emerging alliances (Fumasoli et al. 2018; Vucasovic & Stensaker 2018). Given the indirect nature of steering, the answer to the classical question of “Who governs?” (Dahl 1961) higher education in the EU is not an easy one. The situation is not eased by the fact that while research, innovation, and education form the core for any higher education institution to function, their political steering is divided in EU to multiple actors, organs, and policy sectors.

This presentation sets out to find an answer to the question through different tasks. First, it analyses the venues of higher education policymaking in the EU. Second, it maps the concrete connections between Finland and the EU organs and venues. Third, it discusses the policymakers’ perspectives on how the EU polity works in relation to higher education.

The presentation draws on the results of a research project and a forthcoming book based on it.

The research project uses a mixed-method convergent design (Creswell & Plano Clark 2017), integrating network analysis, thematic interviews, and observations. The presentation draws on examples of analysis from different methods to answer its leading question of who governs higher education in the EU. Network analysis was used to understand the structure of the political arena, focusing on social relations and interactions within the networks. Social Network Analysis (SNA) (see Wasserman & Faust 1994; Marin & Wellman 2011; Borgatti et al. 2013) provided a quantitative approach, while network ethnography (e.g. Howard’s 2002; Ball & Junemann 2012) offered qualitative insights, allowing for a flexible analysis of network members and their relationships. Data was drawn from public databases and on-line sources. Thematic interviews ‘with the powerful’ (Walford 2011) were conducted with 45 key actors in the Finland-EU higher education policymaking network, including politicians, stakeholders, and officials. These interviews provided specialized knowledge and perspectives on the functioning of the networks. The interview data were coded using structural and descriptive codes (Saldaña 2013), facilitating a detailed analysis of the actors, their roles, and their interactions. Team ethnographic methods (Evans et al. 2015; Gordon et al. 2006) were conducted in three institutional contexts: two sub-committees at the Ministry of Education and Culture and Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment in Finland, and in the European Parliament’s Committee on Culture and Education (CULT). These observations provided complementary knowledge and helped triangulate the findings from the interviews and network analysis (Jerolmack & Khan 2014; Lamont & Swidler 2014).

At the time of writing the abstract, the results are only tentative and will require further critical analysis. We tentatively conclude that much of higher education policymaking work happens somewhere in-between. This is due to several factors that we have identified in our analysis: the blurred boundaries of policy sectors, the emphasized role of technical and bureaucratic work as well as the formal and informal venues for doing policy and the lack of interest of many political players to invest time on the topic largely due to the perceived idea that education is not in the EU legal remits. The blurred boundaries of policy sectors relate to how the legal competences of the European Union potentially blur policymakers view on understanding of EU’s power. The lack of interest or time investment by politicians on higher education seems to be a sum of many things: higher education offers little legislative power and it might be difficult to control the combination of education and RDI sectors. Moreover, the higher-education questions are not divisive enough to force themselves on the agenda of policymakers. In addition, the technical bureaucratic preparation is on a high level and can feed the need of most of the political needs. In the Finnish case, EU higher-education questions appear a bureaucratic and technical process. The political organs that would be the places where Finland could try and influence higher education matters in Europe tend to more pressing international topics. The officials everyday work is to present Finland’s position on different topics, but this seldom raises the eyebrows of either stakeholders or politicians.

Alexiadou, N., & Rambla, X. (2023). Education policy governance and the power of ideas in constructing the new European Education Area. European Educational Research Journal, 22(6), 852–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221121388 Ball, S. J., & Junemann, C. (2011). Education Policy and Philanthropy-The Changing Landscape of English Educational Governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(10), 646–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.583773 Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Sage Publications. Creswell, J. & Plano Clark, V.L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd Edition (third edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city (p. xii + 355-xii + 355). Eeva, K. (2018). The EU’s european semester: Soft power and knowledge in the governing of education [Http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text, University of Oxford]. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4a7fbd6d-21b3-4169-9825-62d3b5f0bf15 Evans, J., Huising, R., & Silbey, S. S. (2015). Accounting for Accounts: Crafting Ethnographic Validity Through Team Ethnography. In K. D. Elsbach & R. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods (pp. 175–187). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315849072-24 Fumasoli, T., Stensaker, B., & Vukasovic, M. (2018). Tackling the multi-actor and multi-level complexity of European governance of knowledge: Transnational actors in focus. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117742763 Gordon, T., Hynninen, P., Lahelma, E., Metso, T., Palmu, T., & Tolonen, T. (2006). Collective ethnography, joint experiences and individual pathways. Nordisk Pedagogik, 26, 3–15. Howard, P. N. (2002). Network Ethnography and the Hypermedia Organization: New Media, New Organizations, New Methods. New Media & Society, 4(4), 550–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144402321466813 Jerolmack, C., & Khan, S. (2014). Talk Is Cheap: Ethnography and the Attitudinal Fallacy. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(2), 178–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114523396 Lamont, M., & Swidler, A. (2014). Methodological Pluralism and the Possibilities and Limits of Interviewing”. Qualitative Sociology, 37(2), 153–171. Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing Education: Governing an emerging policy space. Symposium Books. Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. SAGE (pp. 11–25). Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE. Vukasovic, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). University alliances in the Europe of knowledge: Positions, agendas and practices in policy processes. European Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117724572 Walford, G. (2011). Researching the powerful, British Educational Research Association on-line resource. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/researching-the-powerful.