In an era marked by rapid societal change, higher education institutions are pivotal in cultivating inclusive, equitable, and diverse learning environments (Marginson, 2016). Despite substantial policy efforts at both national and European levels, significant disparities in diversity and inclusion practices persist across universities (Moriña, 2016). While some institutions have successfully implemented comprehensive diversity strategies – such as targeted support for underrepresented groups, inclusive curricula, and equity-driven recruitment policies – others continue to face significant structural and cultural obstacles (Claeys-Kulik et al., 2019). A promising avenue to address these disparities is through European university alliances, which foster institutional learning, collaborative policymaking, and the cross-border exchange of best practices (de Wit & Deca, 2020). The NEOLAiA alliance, comprising nine universities across Europe, offers a distinctive framework to explore how inter-institutional cooperation can amplify diversity and inclusion efforts.

Higher education is currently navigating a landscape shaped by ideological tensions, demographic shifts, and rapid technological advancements (Teichler, 2009). Furthermore, existing research suggests that inclusion policies are often implemented inconsistently, with considerable variation in both student and staff experiences even within the same national context (Claeys-Kulik et al., 2019; Harrison & Peacock, 2010). Consequently, a pan-European perspective is essential to understand both the shared challenges and the institution-specific needs related to diversity and inclusion. Research in this domain must not only examine the current state of diversity and inclusion policies but also investigate how inter-institutional collaboration can shape the future of inclusive higher education practices (Kehm & Musselin, 2013).

This analysis is framed by existing models of diversity and inclusion in higher education, as well as theories of organisational learning. Studies in this field highlight the need for structural measures, such as policy reforms and improved accessibility, alongside cultural shifts, including leadership engagement, staff training, and curriculum diversification (Ainscow, 2020). Moreover, data from the European higher education area indicate that inclusive policies improve academic outcomes, enhance student well-being, and foster a more equitable research environment (European Education and Culture Executive Agency: Eurydice, 2020). At the same time, research on organisational learning underscores the importance of networks and alliances in facilitating mutual learning, best practice sharing, and the development of sustainable policies across institutions (Claeys-Kulik et al., 2019). Empirical findings suggest that universities engaged in structured alliances report more consistent progress in diversity and inclusion than those operating independently (Veugelers & del Rey, 2014).

While previous studies have examined diversity and inclusion initiatives at individual universities, there has been less focus on how transnational cooperation contributes to these efforts (Stensaker & Maassen, 2015). This gap in the literature gives rise to the following research question:

Which best practices in diversity and inclusion are identified by university members within the nine European universities of the NEOLAiA alliance, and where do they perceive areas for improvement?

To address the research question, a comprehensive analysis was conducted based on the NEOLAiA Diversity & Inclusion Needs Analysis, with particular emphasis on identifying best practices and areas for improvement in fostering inclusive academic environments. The needs analysis provides a structured framework for evaluating the current state of diversity and inclusion efforts, highlighting institutional strengths and identifying areas requiring further development. Within higher education, this tool offers valuable insights to inform policies and support structures that better cater to the diverse needs of student and staff populations (Slee, 2019). The needs analysis was conducted within the NEOLAiA alliance, co-funded by the European Commission for the period 2024–2027. The partner institutions include Bielefeld University (Germany), University of Jaén (Spain), University of Nicosia (Cyprus), Örebro University (Sweden), University of Ostrava (Czech Republic), University of Salerno (Italy), Ștefan cel Mare University of Suceava (Romania), Šiauliai State University of Applied Sciences (Lithuania), and University of Tours (France). The sample comprised 1,458 students, 919 staff members, and 204 individuals holding dual student-staff roles across these institutions. Data was collected through an online survey featuring open-ended questions, allowing participants to share their perspectives on effective diversity and inclusion initiatives, as well as areas requiring further enhancement. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was employed to analyse the qualitative data. This method emphasises iterative engagement with the data and facilitated the identification of key themes related to both best practices and perceived areas for improvement. Reflexive thematic analysis is particularly suited to exploring complex social phenomena, as it enables a nuanced interpretation of institutional diversity and inclusion efforts (Terry et al., 2017). The coding and thematic categorisation were supported by MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis software, which ensured a systematic and transparent approach to identifying patterns across the dataset (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2019). This methodology prioritises researcher reflexivity and engagement with the data, making it well-suited for understanding the multifaceted dynamics of institutional diversity and inclusion (Nowell et al., 2017).

The findings highlight both exemplary practices and areas requiring further development in diversity and inclusion across NEOLAiA. Several institutions already demonstrate outstanding support systems, particularly for international students, economically disadvantaged students, and those with special educational needs (SEN). Comprehensive psychological support, peer mentoring initiatives, and inclusive policies contribute to a strong campus culture of belonging. Some universities are at the forefront of accessibility efforts, offering dedicated SEN centres, mobility support, and specialised programmes for students with disabilities. These institutions serve as exemplars, illustrating that well-targeted strategies can foster meaningful inclusion. However, significant challenges remain. Students and staff report insufficient support structures, particularly for postgraduate students, LGBTQ+ individuals, and first-generation academics. Psychological services are not consistently available, and a lack of coordination between support programmes diminishes their overall effectiveness. Accessibility gaps persist, including inadequate infrastructure, limited flexible study models, and insufficient representation of SEN in decision-making processes. Institutional awareness of diversity and inclusion varies widely, with calls for increased faculty training, enhanced student participation in policymaking, and stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure genuine progress beyond formal commitments. These disparities highlight the critical role of NEOLAiA in advancing diversity and inclusion. By facilitating cross-institutional learning, universities with less-developed support structures can adopt proven strategies from leading institutions. Through collaborative frameworks, shared resources, and joint initiatives, the alliance can bridge gaps and establish a unified, evidence-based approach to diversity and inclusion. Looking ahead, leveraging best practices will be essential. A structured exchange of expertise within NEOLAiA will ensure that each institution benefits from collective knowledge, innovative solutions, and shared commitment to transforming diversity and inclusion into concrete change. Two key components will be the development of a joint NEOLAiA Diversity & Inclusion Charter and the creation of a shared database of best practices, ensuring sustainable and systematic progress across all member universities.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Claeys-Kulik, A.-L., Ekman Jørgensen, T. & Stöber, H. (2019). Diversity, equity and inclusion in European higher education institutions: Results from the INVITED project. de Wit, H. & Deca, L. (2020). Internationalization of Higher Education, Challenges and Opportunities for the Next Decade. In A. Curaj, L. Deca & R. Pricopie (Eds.), European higher education area: Challenges for a new decade. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56316-5_1 European Education and Culture Executive Agency: Eurydice (2020). The European higher education area in 2020: Bologna process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/756192 Harrison, N., & Peacock, N. (2010). Cultural distance, mindfulness and passive xenophobia: Using Integrated Threat Theory to explore home higher education students’ perspectives on ‘internationalisation at home’. British Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 877–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903191047 Kehm, B. M. & Musselin, C. (2013). The development of higher education research in Europe: 25 years of CHER. Sense Publishers. Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2019). Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA: Text, audio, and video. Springer. Marginson, S. (2016). Higher education and the common good. Melbourne University Publishing. Moriña, A. (2016). Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964 Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E. & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(9), 909–922. Stensaker, B. & Maassen, P. (2015). A conceptualisation of available trust-building mechanisms for international quality assurance of higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.991538 Teichler, U. (2009). Higher education and the world of work: Conceptual frameworks, comparative perspectives, empirical findings. Sense Publishers. Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology (pp. 17–37). SAGE Publications. Veugelers, R. & Del Rey, E. (2014). The contribution of universities to innovation, (regional) growth and employment. European Commission.