Session 5: Data on values as indicator of democracy: presentations and Q&A
The second day of the online seminar started with a presentation session to explore how data on values can be used as an indicator of democracy.
Speakers:
Dr Ilyas Saliba with a presentation on Academic Freedom Index (AFI)
Enora Bennetot Pruvot with a presentation on EUA's Autonomy Scorecard
Chair: Elizabeth Colucci (SPHERE team)
Ilyas Saliba explained that the AFI was created to measure academic freedom globally and over time, recognizing that legal guarantees alone do not reflect actual conditions. Academic freedom was presented as essential for innovation, democratic societies, social progress, and as an early target during democratic backsliding. The AFI dataset relies on expert assessments. It is composed of five indicators on academic freedom:
freedom to research and teach
freedom of academic exchange and dissemination
institutional autonomy
campus integrity
freedom of academic and cultural expression
The findings show that academic freedom has declined in many countries over the past decade, particularly in institutional autonomy and campus integrity, and that constitutional protections often fail to match reality. The speaker also highlighted that the AFI is integrated into the V-Dem dataset, allowing users to compare countries, track trends, and explore relationships between academic freedom and other democratic indicators.
After the presentation a few questions were taken from the audience, such as:
How widely recognized and influential is the Academic Freedom Index internationally? Saliba explained that its use is growing in academic research, NGO reporting, media coverage, and policy discussions, although he believes it could be adopted more widely.
How does the index treat police presence on university campuses? Saliba clarified that the index does not automatically view police presence as negative; rather, it assesses whether security measures contribute to intimidation, surveillance, violence, or restrictions on academic activity. This sparked discussion about different national contexts, with participants sharing perspectives on campus security and its relationship to academic freedom.
Afterwards, Enora Bennetot Pruvot presented the EUA Autonomy Scorecard, focusing specifically on institutional autonomy - the relationship between universities and governments, and who has decision-making authority over key aspects of university governance. The scorecard benchmarks 35 European higher education systems across four dimensions: organizational, financial, staffing, and academic autonomy. Its purpose is not to prescribe a single model or directly measure academic freedom, but to provide evidence for dialogue, raise awareness of risks to university autonomy, and support fact-based policymaking. The presentation highlighted how the scorecard helps track changes over time, compare regulatory frameworks, and stimulate public and policy debates, while also acknowledging its limitations, particularly its reliance on legal frameworks and the challenge of capturing differences between formal rules and actual practice.
The Q&A following the EUA Autonomy Scorecard presentation was very brief and consisted mainly of a reflective comment rather than substantive questions. Participants were encouraged to explore the resources and country case studies shared by the presenters.
Session 6: Why values matter for higher education, and what national and European policies can do about them (Panel discussion)
Speakers:
Liviu Matei, Head of the School of Education, Communication & Society (ECS), King's College London
Monika Steinel, Deputy Secretary General, European University Association
Slaven Misljencevic, Policy Officer DG RTD, European Commission
Chair: Michael Gaebel (SPHERE team)
The panel discussion highlighted the importance of protecting academic freedom and institutional autonomy as the foundations of higher education values. Speakers agreed that these values are essential for high-quality teaching and research, democratic societies, and public trust in science, but that they require both legal protection and practical implementation within institutions. The discussion emphasized the need for shared frameworks to define and uphold higher education values while recognising that interpretations may differ across contexts. Participants also stressed the important role of university leadership in embedding values into institutional policies and practices, alongside the contribution of European initiatives such as the proposed European Research Area (ERA) Act in establishing common standards and strengthening the protection of academic freedom across Europe.
Liviu Matei argued that higher education values are best understood within institutional, national, and regional frameworks that provide shared definitions, responsibilities, and mechanisms for implementation and monitoring. He stressed that while academic freedom is a core value, it must be balanced with other principles such as academic integrity and institutional responsibility. Drawing on examples from the UK and his own institution, he highlighted the importance of embedding values in university charters, codes of conduct, and international commitments, while acknowledging that different regions may legitimately adopt different frameworks for interpreting and protecting these values.
Monika Steinel emphasised that values should not only be discussed when they are under threat but should also be recognized as a positive foundation for universities’ societal contributions. She explained how the EUA has developed practical principles and guidelines to help institutions operationalize academic freedom. These recommendations encourage universities to establish a shared institutional understanding of academic freedom, embed it in policies and daily practice, support academic self-governance, protect academic communities from external pressures, and maintain diverse funding sources to safeguard institutional independence.
Slaven Misljencevic highlighted academic freedom and institutional autonomy as essential conditions for high-quality teaching, research, innovation, and democratic societies. Speaking from the perspective of the European Commission, he argued that protecting these values enhances trust in science, supports evidence-based policymaking, and strengthens Europe's attractiveness for researchers worldwide. He also outlined the objectives of the proposed ERA Act, which seeks to establish a common legal baseline for the protection of freedom of scientific research across the EU. While emphasising the importance of legislation, he noted that legal protections alone are insufficient and must be complemented by institutional awareness, implementation, and practical support mechanisms.
Session 7: Priorities for strengthening values-based higher education (Panel discussion)
Speakers:
Claudia Melinte, Coordinator, National Erasmus+ Office, Moldova
Nizar El-Mehtar, Assistant Professor of Education, Haigazian University, Beirut
Daciana Pop, Vice President, European Students’ Union
Michael Gaebel, SPHERE team
Chair: Elizabeth Colucci (SPHERE team)
This panel focused on the gap between the formal commitment to higher education values and their implementation in practice. Speakers agreed that while values such as academic freedom, institutional autonomy, integrity, participation, and equity are widely recognised, they must be embedded in institutional culture, governance, and everyday decision-making to remain meaningful. The discussion also highlighted that national contexts shape the challenges institutions face, with particular attention given to higher education systems operating under political instability, conflict, or democratic transition. Participants concluded that stronger monitoring, clearer implementation mechanisms, institutional leadership, and sustained dialogue are needed to translate values into resilient institutional practice.
Nizar El Mehtar discussed the importance of safeguarding higher education values in fragile contexts marked by political instability, economic crisis, and declining public trust. He identified academic integrity, ethical responsibility, equity, dignity, and participation as key priorities and argued that values should not only be addressed in aspirational statements, but must be made visible in institutional governance, teaching, quality assurance, and decision-making . He proposed developing a "values-to-practice audit" to help institutions assess how effectively values are implemented, and stressed that values must remain resilient during periods of political, economic, and social pressure.
Claudia Melinte reflected on the Moldovan context, explaining that institutional autonomy and academic freedom are still relatively new concepts following the country's post-Soviet reforms. She noted that there is still no common understanding across higher education institutions of what academic freedom entails in practice, particularly regarding the relationship between universities and government. She emphasized the need for continued dialogue, awareness-raising, and capacity building to deepen understanding of these concepts, while also highlighting emerging challenges such as the governance implications of artificial intelligence and the impact of the war in neighbouring Ukraine.
Daciana Pop emphasized that higher education values must be translated into concrete actions and behaviours rather than remaining political declarations. From the student perspective, she highlighted persistent implementation gaps, citing examples such as addressing sexual harassment, protecting students' rights, and supporting students at risk. She called for stronger monitoring mechanisms, European-level frameworks, and greater solidarity to ensure that values are consistently upheld across the European Higher Education Area. She also stressed the importance of viewing universities as civic spaces with responsibilities that extend beyond education alone.
Michael Gaebel concluded that while challenges to higher education values have increased, significant progress has also been made over recent decades, particularly in student participation and institutional awareness. He argued that closing the gap between policy and practice requires more than legal frameworks; it also depends on institutional culture, inclusive governance, and committed leadership. He described universities as microcosms of society where disagreements and competing values should be managed through open dialogue and democratic processes, while recognising that institutions must also engage constructively with wider societal debates and differing perspectives.
Session 8: The needs of higher education institutions in HERE countries for strengthening values-based higher education
Initially planned with a breakout group format, this last session took place in the plenary by the decision of the organising team. Before giving a floor to the participants, the organisers shared a presentation with the results from the pre-event survey conducted among the participants. The results showed that already before the event, the topic of values was deemed as important by most of the participants. See the slides on pre-event survey for more information.
This also included a list of questions gathered raised in the pre-event survey allowing participants to reflect on what was not or not sufficiently addressed during the event. Such questions included , among others, how can reinforcing academic values promote peace and stability, as well as how does AI challenge fundamental HE values. Next, the exchange focused in particular on how higher education values can be translated into institutional practice. Participants emphasised the importance of integrating values into curricula from an early stage, providing capacity-building for academic staff, and embedding values within institutional culture, governance, and monitoring frameworks rather than treating them as abstract principles.
The discussion also explored the role of universities as spaces for open debate on complex and controversial societal issues. Participants stressed that academic freedom should enable evidence-based discussion while respecting diversity and differing perspectives, and noted that values cannot simply be measured through quality assurance mechanisms but must be reflected in institutional behaviour and long-term culture.
In concluding the discussion, participants proposed continuing the conversation through future SPHERE activities, including a possible study visit focused on how universities implement values in teaching, governance, and engagement with society. They also highlighted the importance of learning from real-world cases where institutions navigate sensitive social, political, and ethical issues.