OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier – Internationalization of Higher Education:

Experiences and Challenges

June 2025

HIGHER EDUCATION FROM AN INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE:

EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

NILAY NEYIŞCI

nilbasar@hacettepe.edu.tr

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nilay Neyişci is a faculty member in the Department of Educational Sciences, at

Hacettepe University in Ankara (Turkey), where she has served since 2022. She received her

B.A. in Sociology from the Middle East Technical University, and completed her M.A. and Ph.D. in

Educational Administration at Hacettepe University. Her academic work focuses on higher

education, combining theoretical and practical approaches in areas such as educational policy,

leadership, and organizational behavior through an interdisciplinary approach. Her research

interests include the sociology of education, leadership, digital transformation and digital

leadership, educational governance, family studies, technology addiction, migration and

education, and social networks.

Abstract

This study addresses the significance and applicability of an inclusive governance approach in

higher education institutions. It emphasizes that higher education is evolving globally toward

the goals of democratization, diversity, and inclusion. Inclusive governance encompasses the

active participation of stakeholders in decision-making processes, transparency,

accountability, and participatory structures. In this context, the study highlights the necessity

of involving students, academic and administrative staff, and external stakeholders in

university governance processes. The study asserts that inclusivity involves not only

representation but also effective participation and decision-making power, which must be

supported by institutional culture, leadership practices, and structural arrangements. It also

emphasizes that inclusive governance contributes significant value to higher education in

areas such as quality assurance, academic success, and social responsibility. In conclusion,

higher education institutions are expected to serve not only as knowledge producers but also

as environments where social justice, equality, and participation are actively upheld. To

achieve this transformation, it is recommended that the core principles and practices of

inclusive governance be integrated into the administrative systems of universities.

Keywords

Social Justice, Access To Higher Education, Inclusive Governance, Disadvantaged Groups,

Education Policy.

Resumo

O presente estudo examina a relevância e a aplicabilidade de uma abordagem de governação

inclusiva no contexto das Instituições de Ensino Superior. Salienta-se que o ensino superior,

à escala global, se encontra em transformação, orientando-se progressivamente para os

princípios da democratização, da diversidade e da inclusão. A governação inclusiva, neste

quadro, é entendida como um modelo que promove a participação ativa das diversas partes

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

interessadas nos processos de tomada de decisão, sustentado em princípios de transparência,

responsabilidade e estruturas participativas. O estudo sublinha a importância de integrar

estudantes, pessoal docente e não docente, bem como entidades externas, nos mecanismos

de governação universitária, reconhecendo que a inclusão vai além da mera representação

simbólica, implicando uma participação efetiva e um poder de decisão real. Este modelo de

governação deve ser apoiado por uma cultura institucional propícia, práticas de liderança

inclusiva e dispositivos estruturais adequados. O estudo defende que a adoção de práticas

inclusivas de governação acrescenta valor significativo ao ensino superior, particularmente

em domínios como a garantia da qualidade, o sucesso académico e a responsabilidade social

das instituições. Em síntese, considera-se que as instituições de ensino superior devem

assumir-se não apenas como centros de produção e disseminação de conhecimento, mas

também como espaços que promovem ativamente a justiça social, a igualdade e a

participação democrática. Para que esta transformação seja efetiva, recomenda-se a

integração dos princípios e práticas fundamentais da governação inclusiva nos sistemas

administrativos e na cultura organizacional das universidades.

Palavras-chave

Justiça Social, Acesso Ao Ensino Superior, Governança Inclusiva, Grupos Desfavorecidos,

Política Educacional.

How to cite this article

Neyişci, Nilay (2025). Higher Education from an Inclusive Governance Perspective: Expanding the

Boundaries of Social Justice. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations. Thematic Dossier -

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges. VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1. June

2025, pp. 85-99. DOI https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0325.6.

Article submitted on 14

April 2025 and accepted for publication on 12

may 2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

HIGHER EDUCATION FROM AN INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE

PERSPECTIVE: EXPANDING THE BOUNDARIES OF SOCIAL

JUSTICE

NILAY NEYIŞCI

1. Introduction

In the 21st century, global education policies shaped by the ideal of the knowledge

society have positioned higher education as a cornerstone of both social development

and individual competence. However, these global trends have often failed to eliminate

socio-economic inequalities in access to and success within higher education; instead,

they tend to reproduce such disparities. Access to higher education must be understood

not only in terms of university admission but also through indicators such as graduation

rates, utilization of institutional support systems, and academic achievement. From this

perspective, the concept of social justice offers a critical analytical framework.

In Türkiye, the massification of higher education has accelerated notably since the early

2000s, particularly through the expansion of universities and the increase in student

quotas (Erçetin, Akbaşlı & Baysülen, 2020). However, for this quantitative growth to

translate into a more equitable structure, it is essential to address the structural barriers

that impede access for disadvantaged groups—such as low-income individuals, those

residing in rural areas, persons with disabilities, and refugees. The participation of these

groups in higher education should not merely be framed within the principle of equal

opportunity but must also be addressed through a rights-based understanding of social

justice (Furlong & Cartmel, 2009).

The concept of social justice necessitates an expansion of education policies beyond the

sole dimension of access, encompassing fair representation, participatory governance,

equitable distribution of resources, and parity in academic outcomes (Rawls, 1971; Fraser

& Honneth, 2003; Singh, 2011). In this regard, the notion of “inclusive governance”

emphasizes a governance model that prioritizes both the involvement of stakeholders in

decision-making processes and the responsiveness of institutional structures to the

specific needs of disadvantaged groups. Inclusive governance demands that higher

education institutions be assessed not solely based on their educational and research

outputs, but also on their capacity to generate social responsibility and justice (Wise,

Dickinson, Katan & Gallegos, 2020). Social justice entails not only equal opportunities

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

but also the systematic empowerment of historically marginalized subgroups. Higher

education systems, in this context, may serve as corrective mechanisms that enable the

transformation of these groups both individually and collectively. Fraser’s principle of

“parity of participation” thus compels the establishment of equality mechanisms that

extend beyond resource distribution to include representation and recognition (Fraser,

2009).

As emphasized in the reports of international organizations such as UNESCO, OECD, and

the European Commission, higher education access policies should not be confined to

expanding quotas; rather, they should be integrated with supportive mechanisms such

as scholarship schemes, student support services, psychological counseling, and

mentoring programs (OECD, 2023; UNESCO, 2022). Moreover, governance processes

should be rendered more transparent and participatory through mechanisms such as

student representation, academic advising systems, and social impact assessments

(European Commission, 2021).

Accordingly, the primary aim of this study is to examine the extent to which access

policies based on social justice are structured in line with the principles of inclusive

governance within Turkish higher education system. Drawing on literature and policy

documents, this study seeks to explore the alignment between access policies and the

objectives of social justice, and to identify the institutional reforms required to enhance

such alignment. To this end, the study first outlines a theoretical framework addressing

the concepts of social justice, access, and governance; subsequently, it analyzes access

policies in the Turkish context, presents findings on inclusive governance practices, and

concludes with a set of recommendations.

2. Theoretical Framework

The concepts of social justice and inclusive governance in higher education lie at the

intersection of the disciplines of educational sciences, public administration, and political

science. In this study, the social justice approach is grounded in Rawls’ (1971) theory of

“justice as fairness,” which goes beyond equal opportunities and incorporates affirmative

action measures in favor of disadvantaged groups. Fraser (2009), on the other hand,

conceptualizes social justice as a multidimensional structure that includes not only the

redistribution of resources but also cultural recognition and political participation.

Accordingly, ensuring social justice in higher education policies requires equitable

mechanisms of representation and sensitivity to cultural diversity (Sen, 2010; Wilson-

Strydom, 2011).

Access to education is defined by UNESCO as “the right of every individual to receive

quality education,” and it emphasizes that this right must be guaranteed especially for

disadvantaged groups (UNESCO, 2022). In the context of higher education, access

encompasses not only physical admission but also academic preparation, financial aid,

institutional guidance, and access to post-graduation opportunities (Erçetin, Akbaşlı &

Esen, 2024). Governance, in contrast to traditional hierarchical administration, refers to

multi-stakeholder, participatory, transparent, and accountable decision-making

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

processes (Trow, 2010). Inclusive governance is a variant of this broader understanding

that prioritizes social justice, particularly by ensuring the active participation of

disadvantaged groups in the delivery of public services (Rhodes, 1997; Fung, 2006).

Inclusive governance in higher education extends beyond achieving diversity in

governing bodies; it also involves student participation in the design of academic

programs, collaboration with civil society in institutional evaluation processes, and the

implementation of community feedback mechanisms (Marginson, 2016). Based on these

theoretical foundations, this study proceeds from the premise that social justice must be

considered not only in terms of equality but also through the principles of fairness,

recognition, and participation, and it focuses on assessing the transformative capacity of

higher education systems. Inclusive governance should be viewed not only as an ethical

mode of governance but also as a strategic framework for reconstructing institutional

legitimacy. In his model of “participatory governance,” Fung (2006) emphasizes that

legitimacy is not only linked to the effectiveness of governance outcomes but also to the

diversity of actors involved in the process. In this context, governance structures in

higher education should not be limited to internal university stakeholders but must also

integrate external factors such as civil society organizations, local governments, and

students into decision-making processes. Within this framework, three core conceptual

areas—social justice, access, and inclusive governance—emerge as key to evaluating

policies aimed at adjusting higher education systems and reducing social inequalities.

These concepts involve not only the formal recognition of the right to education but also

its equitable, fair, and inclusive realization (Açıkalın &Erçetin, 2018).

Social justice is a multi-layered concept at the heart of debates around equality in

education. Based on Rawls’ theory of “justice as fairness” (1971), social justice

necessitates arrangements that enable individuals—taking into account their inherent or

socially constructed disadvantages—to access equal opportunities. Fraser (2009)

conceptualizes social justice through three dimensions: redistribution (equitable

distribution of economic resources), recognition (visibility and respect for cultural

identities), and participation (inclusion in decision-making processes). In this context,

social justice in higher education entails a comprehensive approach that goes beyond

access to student quotas, encompassing active participation in learning environments,

utilization of support services, and success in graduation.

Although access to higher education is often discussed in terms of inequality at the point

of university admission, it should be understood as a broader process. According to

Brennan and Naidoo (2008), access should be addressed through a “processual equity”

approach that includes preparation, admission, retention, success, and graduation. This

perspective enables the evaluation of not only selection criteria but also pedagogical

practices, financial support systems, and post-graduation opportunities from a justice

standpoint (Erçetin, Akbaşlı & Esen, 2024). Furthermore, access policies should not be

designed solely around individual achievement but also reflect the principles of social

responsibility aimed at addressing structural inequalities (Singh, 2011).

The concept of governance refers to multi-stakeholder, participatory, transparent, and

accountable decision-making processes, in contrast to traditional hierarchical

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

management. Inclusive governance in higher education institutions entails operating

based on the principles of multi-stakeholder engagement, participation, transparency,

and accountability throughout decision-making, implementation, and evaluation

processes. UNESCO (2015) defines inclusive governance as the establishment of

institutional mechanisms that ensure the representation of disadvantaged groups. This

approach goes beyond symbolic forms of participation, such as student representation,

and requires structural transformations including representation in academic

committees, data-driven decision-making processes, social impact evaluations, and

horizontal accountability models (Trowler, 2010). Inclusive governance also mandates

that higher education institutions be evaluated not only based on their educational

outputs but also in terms of their contribution to social equity. The tripartite structure of

social justice in higher education—redistribution (scholarships and support services),

recognition (visibility of cultural identity and diversity), and participation (access to

decision-making processes)—necessitates a holistic approach to institutional policy

design (Fraser, 2009; Gewirtz, 2006). For instance, supporting students from rural areas

both economically and academically requires not only financial resources but also

pedagogical advising and psychosocial support systems. Although the expansion of

access to higher education is often presented as an indicator of democratization, its

secondary effects that may deepen socio-economic inequalities should not be overlooked.

For example, the fact that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to

enroll in under-resourced institutions reduces the notion of equal opportunity to a

superficial framework (Marginson, 2011). In this sense, massification can become a

“quantitative illusion” that masks structural inequalities. At the intersection of these three

conceptual domains, higher education policies that prioritize social justice must be

holistically structured—not only through quota planning but also in areas such as

resource allocation, pedagogical support, academic culture, and governance structures.

In the context of Turkey, this theoretical framework provides a functional basis for both

the analysis of existing policies and the normative foundation of proposed

recommendations.

3. Development of Higher Education access policies in Turkey

The formation of access policies to higher education in Türkiye has been shaped by a

centralized structure since the early years of the Republic. The university reform carried

out in 1933 laid the foundations of modern higher education, while access to university

remained limited under an elitist model for many years. During this period, universities

were positioned as institutions catering only to a specific social segment. Following the

establishment of the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) in the post-1980 era, a centrally

planned higher education system was constructed. University entrance examinations,

enrollment quotas, and standardized program structures rendered access to university

both competitive and restrictive. This system particularly hindered participation in higher

education for students from low-income and rural areas (Yücel, 2023; İnan & Demir,

2018; Kandemir, 2014).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

3.1 Massification Process After 2000

Beginning in the 2000s, Turkey adopted massification policies in higher education. A key

strategy in this process was the increase in the number of universities, with the aim of

establishing at least one public university in each province. Universities established

between 2006 and 2012 were a significant component of this goal (YÖK, 2014). The

massification process was further supported by increasing enrollment quotas and

expanding distance education opportunities. However, these developments brought

about several quality-related issues. Notably, deficiencies in academic staff,

infrastructural inadequacies, and imbalances in program quality became apparent,

especially in newly established universities (Bali, Demirbilek, & Demirtas, 2024;

Altunoğlu, 2020).

3.2 Policy Initiatives for Disadvantaged Groups

The situation of disadvantaged groups in accessing higher education constitutes a key

agenda item in Turkish education policy. Efforts have been made to develop specific

access policies for groups such as individuals with low socioeconomic status, students

with disabilities, residents of rural areas, and refugees. Recent strategic documents

published by YÖK emphasize the need to increase sensitivity toward these groups (YÖK,

2023). Accessibility units have been established in universities for students with

disabilities, physical conditions on campuses have been improved, and special

arrangements have been made in examinations. However, systematic data regarding the

institutional effectiveness of these practices and their impact on students’ academic

achievement remains limited. Similarly, economically disadvantaged students are

supported through scholarships and loan systems. Yet, factors such as the transparency,

adequacy, and sustainability of scholarship distribution criteria limit the effectiveness of

these practices (Erçetin & Açıkalın, 2018).

3.3 Access and Integration Challenges of Refugees

In the post-2011 period, as a result of the Syrian crisis, Turkey's higher education system

had to accommodate a significant population of refugee students. YÖK and universities

implemented measures to facilitate the application processes of Syrian students under

temporary protection, including additional quotas, exemption from exams, and

scholarship opportunities. Nonetheless, the integration of refugee students into higher

education involves multi-layered challenges. Language proficiency, psychosocial support

needs, housing, and the sense of belonging are among the primary factors affecting the

success and retention of refugee students (UNHCR, 2020). While many of the policies

developed in this area, long-term perspectives on social integration and institutional

inclusivity have yet to be sufficiently developed (Açıkalın, Erçetin, Potas, Çevik, Neyişci

& Görgülü, 2021; Erçetin & Kubilay, 2019).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

3.4 The Role of Open and Distance Education

Open and distance education systems are among the most significant tools for expanding

access to higher education in Turkey. Universities have enabled millions of students to

obtain degrees through open education. This model offers flexible learning opportunities,

particularly for working individuals, women, and residents of rural areas. However,

factors such as the pedagogical quality of open education systems, the adequacy of

student support services, and graduation rates limit the system's effectiveness (Can,

2020). Moreover, student participation in governance processes and institutional

belonging among open education students remain notably low. This hinders the system’s

integration with broader goals of social justice (Erçetin & Açıkalın, 2024).

3.5 Policy Documents and the Monitoring

Various strategic policies by YÖK and the Ministry of National Education aim to enhance

inclusivity and access in higher education. However, most targets focus on quantitative

indicators, while performance monitoring mechanisms remain insufficient. The

disconnect between policy objectives and implementation limits sustainable progress in

the area of access. Additionally, universities need to develop their own access strategies

at the local level and update them through social feedback mechanisms. Centralized

policies that disregard local contexts prove ineffective in universities, creating only

symbolic access for disadvantaged students (Özdemir, 2018).

3.6 Conceptual Model: A Social Justice-Based Multidimensional Access Approach

In line with the discussions presented above, it is evident that access policies to higher

education in Türkiye must be restructured based on the principles of social justice. Access

based on social justice in higher education requires a holistic approach that goes beyond

merely expanding physical access and instead integrates four key dimensions: structural

expansion, supportive policies, representation and recognition, and inclusive governance.

Structural expansion refers to increasing the number of universities, enhancing

infrastructure, and ensuring their equitable geographical distribution to improve physical

access. Supportive policies aim to reduce economic and psychosocial barriers through

mechanisms such as scholarships, housing, and counseling services. Representation and

recognition involve making disadvantaged groups visible, promoting cultural inclusivity,

and ensuring institutional acknowledgment of diverse identities to strengthen students’

sense of belonging. Inclusive governance emphasizes participatory decision-making, the

development of context-specific strategies, and accountability through the monitoring of

educational outcomes. When these four dimensions are addressed collectively, social

justice can be institutionalized in higher education not merely as a principle of access,

but as a foundation for structural and cultural transformation. This model is constructed

on four main pillars: structural expansion, supportive policies, representation and

recognition, and inclusive governance. Each pillar corresponds to a different dimension

of inequality in access to higher education and collectively reflects the principles of

equality and equity embedded in social justice (Wilson-Strydom, 2011; Fraser, 2009).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

In general, access policies to higher education in Türkiye have been shaped by physical

expansion and quantitative growth, whereas participatory and inclusive governance

models grounded in the principles of social justice have not yet been sufficiently

institutionalized. Access policies must be assessed not only in quantitative terms but also

through a holistic lens encompassing qualitative aspects, representational equity, and

support systems. In this context, it is vital to restructure access policies to higher

education based on the principles of equality, equity, recognition, and representation, as

required by social justice. Integrating the perspective of inclusive governance into policy-

making processes at local, institutional, and national levels will enable the higher

education system to become more just and sustainable.

4. Findings

The concept of social justice in higher education encompasses not only equal access but

also the fair distribution of opportunities for active participation in academic processes

and achievement. The literature reveals a limited number of policy analyses concerning

the integration of socially disadvantaged groups into higher education systems

(Marginson, 2016). This gap highlights the need to evaluate social justice in higher

education not only at the point of entry but also throughout students’ persistence and

graduation phases. Inequities in access often stem from multi-layered and interrelated

socioeconomic, geographic, and cultural factors. Individuals living in rural areas are

disadvantaged in accessing higher education institutions in central urban locations due

to deficiencies in both physical and digital infrastructure. Similarly, students from low-

income families face additional burdens arising from both direct educational expenses

and indirect living costs (OECD, 2023). Furthermore, cultural factors such as ethnic

background, language differences, and migratory history increase the risk of exclusion

and discrimination within the education system.

Targeted policy interventions in some countries have shown potential to reduce these

inequalities. For instance, in Australia, universities are required to conduct detailed

reporting and performance monitoring for social groups defined under the category of

“equity groups” (Gale & Parker, 2013). These mechanisms track not only application and

admission rates but also students' academic achievements, graduation rates, and career

outcomes.

Efforts to broaden access to higher education in Türkiye have primarily focused on

enrollment planning, financial support mechanisms, and open and distance learning

practices. The quota regulations implemented by the Council of Higher Education (YÖK)

aim to reduce regional disparities through additional quotas allocated to universities in

specific geographical areas. These advantages offered to universities in Eastern and

Southeastern Anatolia help make youth from these regions more visible within the

system (YÖK, 2023).

Scholarship and loan systems are critically important for enabling students from low-

income backgrounds to continue their education. The loans and non-repayable grants

provided by the Credit and Dormitories Institution (KYK) function as support mechanisms

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

that help students endure economic pressures during their academic journeys (YÖK,

2023). However, the scope and adequacy of this support often fall short of fostering

equality among different social groups. A lack of transparency regarding the application

process, evaluation criteria, and distribution mechanisms can undermine the system’s

credibility. Although open and distance learning practices have the potential to reduce

spatial disadvantages, the pedagogical quality and the impact on student success remain

contested. Institutions have extended access to large populations; however, inequalities

in benefiting from these models persist due to inadequate digital infrastructure and

insufficient individual learning support. In addition, students from lower socioeconomic

backgrounds often face limitations in accessing digital tools, further exacerbating digital

divides (Erçetin &Açıkalın, 2024).

5. Discussion

In Türkiye, higher education policies have long prioritized expanding quantitative access.

This orientation has manifested in the expansion of physical capacities of universities,

the increase in student quotas, and the dissemination of higher education institutions

across various regions. However, this expansion has not been sufficiently supported by

qualitative transformations necessary to ensure equity in student success. It is critically

important not only to enable access for socioeconomically disadvantaged students but

also to provide the structural support necessary for them to succeed throughout their

educational journey. In line with Fraser’s (2009) framework of justice, which

encompasses redistribution, recognition, and representation, current practices in Türkiye

appear to have made partial progress primarily in the domain of redistribution, while

structural deficiencies persist in the realms of recognition and representation.

Students from low-income backgrounds, rural areas, first-generation university

attendees, and ethnic minorities face multiple barriers from entry to graduation within

the higher education system. In order to sustain academic success, these students

require multidimensional support mechanisms that go beyond financial assistance,

encompassing access to learning materials, psychosocial support, and digital literacy

(Wilson-Strydom, 2011). While Türkiye’s scholarship and loan systems generally address

these needs, systematic deficiencies remain in areas such as academic advising, cultural

adaptation, and social integration. Nonetheless, mentoring programs and student

support centers recently introduced in some universities can be regarded as promising

initiatives aimed at promoting equity in success.

Institutional limitations also play a decisive role in the failure to achieve equity in

academic success. Structural disparities between public and foundation (private)

universities in Türkiye further deepen inequalities. Foundation universities, often

endowed with greater financial resources, modern infrastructure, and international

connections, are able to offer a broader range of opportunities to students. However, the

high tuition fees associated with these institutions constitute a significant barrier,

particularly for low-income students. Public universities, on the other hand, offer more

affordable education but often suffer from infrastructure deficiencies, large student-to-

instructor ratios, and insufficient academic counseling, all of which negatively impact

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

student success. Moreover, the scholarship and support programs in foundation

universities are typically tied to strict performance criteria, rendering them unsustainable

as long-term support mechanisms for disadvantaged students (Özdemir, 2018).

Therefore, in promoting social justice in higher education, it is essential to consider not

only quantitative expansion across institutions but also qualitative equity in opportunities

among them. The lack of early intervention systems to identify students at risk of failure

can lead to declines in academic performance. Student retention models in the United

Kingdom have demonstrated that student success depends not only on individual effort

but also on institutional responsibility (Singh, 2011). Early warning systems and

counseling networks implemented in some Turkish universities offer positive examples in

this regard, though they still fall short in terms of widespread adoption and sustainability.

Inclusive governance principles are crucial for integrating social justice into institutional

operations. However, despite being included in policy documents, these principles have

not been systematically implemented in practice in Türkiye. The participation of

disadvantaged groups in decision-making processes is a mechanism that not only

enhances representation but also strengthens policy effectiveness. Democratic

governance must go beyond mere representation to ensure that such representation is

meaningfully reflected in decision-making processes. In this context, the strengthening

of student councils, increased student participation in advisory boards, and the promotion

of multi-stakeholder decision-making processes in some universities can be cited as

positive developments (Wise, Dickinson, Katan, & Gallegos, 2020).

Currently, student representation systems and structural supports would enable students

to contribute to decision-making processes in an informed and constructive manner.

Students approaching the issue from a social justice perspective face difficulties in

articulating their needs or influencing policies. However, recent projects carried out by

student communities in collaboration with civil society organizations and academic units

indicate encouraging progress in participatory governance. Institutional support for these

projects can help create an environment conducive to meaningful student participation

in governance processes.

Disability support units must be considered an integral component of inclusive

governance in higher education. There is significant variation among Turkish universities

in terms of the structure, service capacity, and expertise levels of these units. While

some universities have made commendable efforts to improve physical accessibility,

deficiencies remain in areas such as adapting digital materials, training academic staff,

and raising awareness of the academic rights of students with disabilities. In this regard,

the “Barrier-Free University” award program recently initiated by the Council of Higher

Education (YÖK) can be considered an important incentive mechanism to promote

awareness and disseminate best practices. Strategic plans of higher education

institutions in Türkiye tend to frame inclusivity goals through quantitative indicators,

often neglecting qualitative dimensions such as experiential justice, sense of belonging,

and academic atmosphere. For instance, objectives like “increasing the proportion of

disadvantaged students” provide no insight into the quality of these students'

experiences, nor do they include metrics concerning the functionality of support systems

or levels of student satisfaction.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

In conclusion, while the Turkish higher education system has achieved significant

progress in terms of access, systemic transformation is still needed in areas such as

equity in success, inclusive governance, and experiential justice. Inclusive governance

must go beyond representation to institutionalize effective, sustainable, and accountable

participation in decision-making processes. In this regard, social justice should not be

treated merely as a strategic goal but must be embraced as a normative value at the

core of all academic, administrative, and cultural practices within higher education

institutions.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

Ensuring social justice in higher education should not be confined to expanding physical

access alone; rather, it must also include the systematic strengthening of support

mechanisms and inclusive governance structures that prioritize equity in student success.

In Türkiye, the recent increase in the number of universities and their geographic

distribution across different regions can be seen as a significant development in terms of

access. Spatial equity must be considered in conjunction with socioeconomic, cultural,

and digital inequalities. Higher education institutions should broaden the scope of

institutional support structures and ensure their systematic functionality in alignment

with the goal of realizing social justice. Services such as academic advising, psychosocial

support, career counseling, and learning centers are fundamental to enhancing student

success.

The digitalization process has introduced new dimensions to social justice. Particularly in

the aftermath of COVID-19, the proliferation of remote education practices has rendered

digital inequalities more visible. In this context, it is imperative for higher education

institutions to strengthen their digital infrastructures and develop policies concerning

internet access, device provision, and the production of accessible digital content. The

Council of Higher Education’s efforts in open access resources, digital library systems,

and the institutionalization of distance education are positive steps in this direction.

However, these practices must be disseminated sustainably and inclusively across all

universities. Social assistance policies must be restructured through a social justice lens.

Economic support should go beyond scholarships and encompass comprehensive policies

addressing basic needs such as housing, nutrition, transportation, and healthcare. Multi-

dimensional support models implemented at some universities—such as integrated

student cards providing access to meals, transportation, and stationery—aim to relieve

students from economic pressure and demonstrate that social assistance functions not

merely as financial aid, but also as a mechanism for leveling academic achievement.

Performance monitoring mechanisms are essential for evaluating and improving the

effectiveness of social justice policies. These systems should not be limited to quantitative

data but must also incorporate qualitative analyses and student experiences. Qualitative

data collection tools include student surveys, focus group discussions, case studies, and

ethnographic observations. Tracking access policies with measurable and assessable

indicators is necessary not only for performance management but also for accountability

and strategic planning. The Higher Education Quality Council of Turkey offers a

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

framework in this regard; its quality assurance systems encourage the consideration of

social indicators such as inclusiveness, access, and student experience in institutional

performance evaluations. This system allows social justice to be embedded in institutional

structures not just as a vision but as a measurable performance criterion.

In conclusion, achieving social justice in higher education requires not only the expansion

of access opportunities but also the institutional internalization of structural mechanisms

that support student success and inclusive governance practices. The transformative and

lasting impact of this approach can only be realized to the extent that it is reflected in

daily practices, academic culture, and a sense of societal responsibility. Embedding social

justice as the normative foundation of the higher education system produces a public

good that supports not only disadvantaged groups but also the welfare and

democratization process of society as a whole.

References

Açıkalın, Ş.N. and Erçetin, Ş.Ş. (2018). Staff Experiences Regarding Student Engagement

in Active Learning and Social Environments in New Generation Universities. In Ş.Ş.

Erçetin (Ed.) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2016. Springer Proceedings in

Complexity, Ch 6, pp. 67-82, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, DOI

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_6

Açıkalın, Ş.N., Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Potas, N., Çevik, M. S., Neyişci, N., Görgülü, D. (2021).

Measurement of social integration: Syrian women in Turkey. Journal of Refugee Studies,

34(3), 2960-2983., Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fez120

Altunoğlu, A. (2020). Yükseköğretimde kapsayıcılığın uygulanabilirliği üzerine bir

tartışma. OPUS–Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(27), 672-699. DOI:

10.26466/opus.755015

Bali, O., Demirbilek, N., & Demirtas, H. (2024). Üniversitelerde sosyal adalet algısı

ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji

Dergisi, 44, 793-815. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2024.44.2.0076

Brennan, J., & Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education and the achievement (and/or

prevention) of equity and social justice. Higher education, 56, 287-302.

Can, E. (2020). Coronavirüs (Covid-19) pandemisi ve pedagojik yansımaları: Türkiye’de

açık ve uzaktan eğitim uygulamaları. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi,

6(2),11-53.

Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Akbaşlı, S. & Baysülen, E., (2020). Expectations of administrators and

teachers from students and how students perceive these expectations. OPUS–

International Journal of Society Researches, 16(28), 1183-1199. DOI:

10.26466/opus.680225

Erçetin, Ş. Ş., Akbaşlı, S., & Esen, S. (2024). A Theoretical Examination of Financial

Models of Higher Education and Proposal for Higher Education in Türkiye. International

Online Journal of Education & Teaching, 11(1).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

Erçetin, Ş.Ş. and Açıkalın, Ş.N. (2018). Student Engagement in Active Learning and

Social Environments in New Generation Universities: Experiences of Students. In Ş.Ş.

Erçetin (Ed.) Chaos, Complexity and Leadership 2016. Springer Proceedings in

Complexity, Ch 10, pp. 125-145, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, DOI

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64554-4_10

Erçetin, Ş.Ş. and Kubilay, S. (2019). Beeing a Refugee University Student in Turkey from

the Perspective of Syrian Female Students. In Ş.Ş. Erçetin, N. Potas (Eds.) Chaos,

Complexity and Leadership 2017. Springer Proceedings in Complexity, Ch 43.

Ercetin, S.S., & Acikalin, S.N. (Eds.). (2024). New Perspectives for Leadership after the

COVID-19 Pandemic (1st ed.). Apple Academic Press.

https://doi.org/10.1201/9781032720913

European Commission. (2021). Erasmus+ Programme Guide. URL:

https://erasmusplus.ec.europa.eu/document/erasmus-programme-guide-2021.

Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world

(Vol. 31). Columbia university press.

Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A politico-philosophical

exchange, London: Verso.

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public administration

review, 66, 66-75.

Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2009). Higher Education and Social Justice. McGraw-Hill

Education, United Kingdom.

Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2013). Widening participation in Australian higher education.

Report to the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) and the Office for

Fair Access (OFFA), England. Leicester, UK: CFE (Research and Consulting).

Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education.

Educational philosophy and theory, 38(1), 69-81.

İnan, M., & Demir, M. (2018). Eğitimde fırsat eşitliği ve kamu politikaları: Türkiye üzerine

bir değerlendirme, Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler

Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(2), 337-359.

Kandemir, O. (2014). Türkiye'de yükseköğretim düzeyinde uzaktan eğitim uygulamalari:

Eğitimde fırsat eşitliği ve ekonomik kalkınma. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(5), 1155-

1176.

Marginson, S. (2016). The Dream is Over: The Crisis of Clark Kerr’s California Idea of

Higher Education. Oakland: University of California Press. doi:

http://doi.org/10.1525/luminos.17

OECD. (2023). Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators.

Özdemir, C. (2018). Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimin Yaygınlaşmasının Toplumsal

Tabakalaşmaya Etkisi. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi (3), 542-551.

Rawls , J. (1971). A theory of justice , Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 1, TD1

Thematic Dossier

Internationalization of Higher Education: Experiences and Challenges

June 2025, pp. 85-99

The European Higher Education Alliances: the Challenges of Transnational

University Cooperation

Concepción Anguita-Olmedo

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance,

reflexivity and accountability (Public Policy & Management), Philadelphia, US. Open

University

Sen, A. (2010). The idea of justice, London: Penguin Books.

Singh, M. (2011). The place of social justice in higher education and social change

discourses. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 41(4), 481–

494. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2011.581515

Trow, M. (2010). Twentieth-century higher education: Elite to mass to universal. JHU

Press.

Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. The higher education

academy, 11(1), 1-15.

UNESCO. (2015). Incheon declaration: Education 2030: Towards inclusive and equitable

quality education and lifelong learning for all. Paris: UNESCO.

UNHCR. (2020). Syria regional refugee response. Retrieved from

https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria.

UNICEF. (2022). From Learning Recovery to Education Transformation Insights and

Reflections from the 4th Survey of National Education Responses to COVID-19 School

Closures. United Nations Children's Fund.

https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=43nmEAAAQBAJ

Wilson-Strydom, M. (2011). University access for social justice: a capabilities

perspective. South African Journal of Education, 31(3), 407-418.

Wise, G., Dickinson, C., Katan, T., & Gallegos, M. C. (2020). Inclusive higher education

governance: managing stakeholders, strategy, structure and function. Studies in Higher

Education, 45(2), 339-352.

YÖK. (2023). Higher Education Council 2024–2028 strategic plan.

https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/strateji_dairesi/stratejik-plan/2024-

2028-yok-stratejik-plani.pdf

Yücel, F. H. (2023). Yükseköğretimde kapsayıcılık, çeşitlilik, eşitlik, erişim ve

uluslararasılaşmaya yönelik yenilikçi politikalar ile uygulamalar. Uluslararası Eğitim

Bilimleri Dergisi, 10 (36), 343-364.

Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2014). Yükseköğretim politikalarında yeni YÖK- 2014’ten

sonrası. Ankara: Yükseköğretim Kurulu.