by: Amber Daniels
On 31 October, DVE attended the HEDx Future Solutions conference hosted at The University of Queensland St Lucia campus.
Academics, policymakers and industry leaders met to showcase thought leadership in response to recent seismic shifts in the higher education sector, new domestic policy settings, and the evolving global challenges of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) and geopolitics.
The clear call to action across all discussions was collaboration: partnering across the sector and with industry and government to streamline and amplify innovation; and partnering with students to co-design meaningful change in equity, student experience and graduate outcomes and to develop clear guidance on the utility and use of genAI.
An undercurrent of discussion was the balance between regulation and innovation, and an obvious need to continue building compliance literacy across the breadth of the sector.
Changing business models
‘The Higher Education landscape is changing’ has been a long-overused catchphrase across the sector for decades. While the Dawkins, Bradley, Coaldrake, and O’Kane Reviews are a testament to some truths in that sentiment, it appears that the shift in the way society operates that has come to a head in the past five years is beginning to ubiquitously affect the way Higher Education does business.
Professor Ann Kirschner and others discussed how students are consuming content in ways that were simply not possible ten years ago, and social and economic pressures are, for many, preventing the prioritisation of full time, on campus studies. This in turn compounds accessibility and equity challenges amongst cohorts, in addition to the pedagogical, technological and associated administrative challenges faced by Higher Education Providers (HEPs) in meeting student needs and preferences. Students study in transit, on small devices, and are more likely to seek assistance from Student Services out of hours. Business models must adapt to these behaviours or risk market irrelevance.
UQ VC Professor Deborah Terry highlighted the need for public universities in particular to adapt to the expectations of society in ensuring universities’ missions and operations are inclusive, prioritising diversity and embracing regional workforce demands. Non-university HEPs will increasingly leverage partnerships with industry and university providers to fill gaps in pathways to education or provide specialist training in core skill areas.
Lifelong learning, anywhere
A business-as-usual mindset is no longer sustainable, unless business is future-focused and responsive to market shifts and preferences. Lifelong learning anywhere is becoming a significant strategic locus as HEPs look to meet student demands, and regulators grapple with sector Harmonisation that allows easy transfer, upgrade, exit and recognition across qualifications.
Students’ conceptions of study are no longer contiguous by default: study blocks become shorter moments; qualifications may not be sought in consecutive AQF-order. Providers need platform-agnostic business models, enabling students to tailor their time for study, upskilling, or work, and easily transition between Higher Education and Vocational Training to suit their unique needs and aspirations. These concepts operate at a higher level than micro-credentials—although they are part of the solution—and instead shifts our thinking toward facilitating curated educational experiences that meet shortages in skills and thought leadership, while ensuring the individual obtains a high-quality, affordable education with a genuine return on investment.
A digital future
To manage the emerging and forecast demands of these changing models and behaviours, panellists agreed that students, HEPs, and regulators alike will need to lean into technological innovations and solutions that allow time for direct, on demand student engagement and supporting increased burden on teaching, support and administrative teams. Coupled with the posited 5-year skills shelf-life in the current economy, HEPs will also need to be dynamic with the review, update and monitoring of curricula and graduate outcomes to at the very least keep up with the innovation curve.
However, the digital future is not without risks, and the need to approach genAI with cautious optimism was another prevailing theme across all discussions. The importance of HEPs demonstrating leadership in the responsible and ethical use of genAI is already of significant concern to students, industry and regulators. HEPs will need to safeguard data privacy and academic integrity, while maintaining inclusivity and mitigating barriers to accessibility. As Dr Kylie Austin (Equity Practitioners in Higher Education Australasia) noted, the sector is often guilty of conceptualising students as EFTSL, rather than humans; and the digital future will need to ensure this is not lost in an increased focus on technology, data or performance metrics.
Balancing innovation with regulation
These ‘futures’ highlight a raft of current challenges, if not inadequacies, in how regulation and compliance support innovation. As Professor Ian Li (ASCES) noted, the two-year lag of Federal data is an unreasonable hurdle to understanding our current student profiles: two years being almost the half-life of emerging skillsets. Moreover, an important question arises as to whether reporting requirements and data definitions in turn support adaptations to business models and platform agnosticism. How do we count students who study anytime, anywhere, when we cannot even track individuals between HE and VET? Can current student definitions support students as ‘digital nomads’? Are our executives and policymakers literate enough in the application and intent of legislation and the Higher Education Standards Framework to make informed, strategic decisions in data governance?
Several Deputy Vice-Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors expressed frustration with the density and clumsiness of the Higher Education Standards Framework (HESF) on panel discussions. “The HESF is as constraining as we make it,” remarked Professor Kerri-Lee Krause, challenging the sector to leverage the Framework’s nuance. Her statement reflects a larger debate on whether institutional flexibility is hindered more by regulation or by institutional hesitancy to innovate within existing parameters. Whether this could be interpreted as increased applications for University College status (see numerous successful challenges in the Australian Administrative/Review Tribunal) or the downgrading of universities to less prestigious Provider Categories was not clarified, but—given the yet-legislated impact of international student caps—is not an incomprehensible outcome in the long-term.
The key, however, is in interpretation. Except for the 2018 review of the PCS, the HESF Threshold Standards have not undergone meaningful review since 2015. It is supported by no fewer than 29 Guidance Notes, and several Good Practice notes and toolkits (e.g. academic integrity, transnational education, cybersecurity, and genAI (forthcoming) toolkits). Does this periphery point to a well-supported Framework, or one that requires review to ensure its fitness as effective chaperone of quality assurance in the future? Furthermore, at what level of nuance do these guides inform TEQSA compliance assessments, and their fair and equal application in an increasingly diverse sector? (See again, Note 2).
As recent AAT/ART challenges again suggest, a significant review of the HESF, its utility, and its application may be due. At the very least, sector and regulatory expectations must be aligned.
Ultimately, as the sector moves forward, higher education providers, regulators, and industry partners must work collectively to ensure Australia’s educational landscape can adapt to rapid technological advancements and shifting student expectations. Only by embracing flexibility in compliance, technological integration, and student-centred approaches can we safeguard the relevance and quality of Australian higher education in a global market.
