Editorial

Year 2025, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 999 - 1000, 31.12.2025

Yasar Kondakci , Şahabettin Akşab , Funda Kurt Keskin

Abstract

We have been witnessing increased pressure from external developments urging higher education institutions to adapt. There is a clear expectation to respond to the new era amid digitalization trends, government regulations, and a diversifying population. In this issue of Higher Education Governance & Policy, we present five articles on how higher education generally responds to emerging needs and developments in various societies. The first article, titled “Labor and Professional Accessibility in Chilean Higher Education: Toward Inclusive Legislation for Academic Staff with Disabilities,” by Bernaschina, examines problems with the current legal framework that restricts professionals with disabilities from pursuing academic and research careers in Chilean higher education institutions. The authors propose urgent legal reforms to expand academic career opportunities for professionals with disabilities and to create structures aimed at establishing a more equitable and democratic higher education system in Chile. The second study, titled “Comparative Analysis of Higher Education Accreditation Criteria of Turkish and German Accreditation Bodies,” by Şimşek, Taşçı, and Şahin, conducts a comparative analysis of criteria used by international accreditation agencies and those of local accreditation bodies in the field of health sciences. The results indicate that the two accreditation systems align on certain criteria, indicating common concerns about quality assurance in higher education. The third article, titled “Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Academic Assignments: Views from the Faculty of Education,” by Albayrak and Çetin, examines how faculty members and pre-service teachers in the Faculty of Education perceive the use of GenAI in assessments and evaluations. The findings reveal that academics consider GenAI an unsuitable assessment tool, which calls for new regulations regarding GenAI use in assessments. The fourth study, titled “Sustainable Public Financing with Equity in Higher Education: Comparative Policy Insights from Norway, Canada, Chile, and Türkiye,” by Çalıkoğlu, offers a comparative analysis of how different higher education funding systems affect equity and graduation rates across various governance contexts in Canada, Chile, Norway, and Turkey. The study suggests that publicly funded systems foster greater inclusion and higher completion rates, while privatized or mixed regimes often reproduce stratification unless countered by redistributive reforms. It highlights the importance of creating equitable funding models, transparent governance, and inclusive oversight for fiscal sustainability. The final article, titled “A Framework for Responsible AI in Higher Education,” by Bilgin, discusses the ethical aspects of AI use in higher education. The study identifies various risks linked to AI and introduces the Ethical and Pedagogical Framework for Responsible AI in Higher Education (EPF-AI) to address integrity and ethical concerns related to AI adoption in higher education. Each of these articles highlights a challenge or complexity in higher education and demonstrates that interventions for these issues vary depending on the country and institutional context.

Keywords

editorial , higher education , HEGP