In an era of increasing diversity in higher education, understanding teachers’ positions and diversity beliefs is crucial. Teachers are often seen as primary actors and change agents in diversity policies within higher education institutions. However, there is a lack of an overview regarding these beliefs in European contexts. Transitions for diversity and inclusion in higher education are often slow due to the invisible normalization of institutional norms, which often stem from teachers’ diversity beliefs. Therefore, this article investigates the diversity beliefs of higher education teachers at Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences through ethnographic research. Using interviews, informal conversations, and participatory observation, I analyze these beliefs within a framework of conservative, liberal, and critical diversity perspectives. I present an overview of these perspectives, showing the prominence of a liberal view. Notwithstanding its prominence, interactions during diversity and inclusion events reveal that teachers challenge this dominant perspective, highlighting aspects that often remain unseen. These findings show that diversity perspectives of teachers are not static, but instead represent dynamic, contextual, and relational positions for connection, navigation, and negotiation. This provides insights into the potential for transformation by teachers in contexts resistant to diversity and inclusion. The article contributes to current debates on teachers’ diversity beliefs and their relation to transformation.

This article explores some effects of the “impact agenda” on early academic careers and knowledge production. The impact agenda is the incentivisation of socio‐economic impact in university‐based research through research funding and evaluation mechanisms, producing, it has been theorised, new modalities of scholarly distinction (Watermeyer & Chubb, 2019). The latter risk aligning with traditionally individualistic forms of academic performativity (Chubb & Derrick, 2020), thus perpetuating existing inequality regimes (Davies et al., 2020) through posing additional obstacles to success for traditionally marginalised groups in academic hierarchies. Within the UK context, where the impact agenda is strongly institutionalised, we examine the delivery of highly rated impact by early career researchers and its effect on their work and careers. Specifically, we interrogate the potential for the (e)valuation of impact to democratise knowledge production and access to, and progression in, academic careers. Our article reports on the documentary discourse analysis of the highest‐rated “impact case studies” in the UK’s recent research evaluation exercise and interviews with some of their early career researcher (co)authors. The findings of this exploratory work suggest that while the impact agenda has started to incentivise and reward knowledge co‐production and a broader set of research skills, motivations, and pathways, there is a risk that this tendency co‐exists with, rather than challenges, established forms of “scholarly distinction” embodied in publishing productivity and funding capture, potentially leading to skill and talent loss.

This article explores internationalization processes as an ongoing transformation of higher education institutions by examining a case of internationalization efforts at Tampere University (TAU) in Finland. Against the prevailing policy discourse of international “talent” which tends to instrumentalize international academics, we explore how the experiences of international academics provide a window into complicated dynamics of lived and managed internationalization, including how international academics are themselves agents of transformation. This case study combines a survey and interviews with self‐identified international staff at TAU, as well as our own critical reflections as a team of international and Finnish academics who conducted the research and used the findings to advocate for changes. Our analysis emphasizes a relational understanding of international academics and highlights intersecting challenges around language, uncertain career prospects, and distance from university decision‐making forums. Taken together, the findings illuminate the contradictory positioning of international academics and show the complicated convergences and divergences between managerial attempts to increase the university’s global competitiveness and the diverse needs, positionalities, and agencies of international academics.

The rise in teleworking has reshaped patterns of work, travel, residential choices, and social interaction, but its effects are not evenly distributed across space or socio‐economic groups. Although previous studies highlight both positive and negative consequences of teleworking, less is known about how it affects wellbeing, and whether these effects differ by gender and childcare responsibilities—two factors closely linked to unequal household and caregiving burdens. This study addresses these gaps by examining how teleworking relates to commute‐related wellbeing and general life satisfaction, and whether these relationships vary according to gender and the presence of children in the household. Data were collected through an online survey, targeting employees in East Flanders, Belgium. We estimated two OLS models to assess the influence of teleworking frequency on (a) commute‐related wellbeing and (b) general life satisfaction. The results show that teleworking is a significant predictor of commute wellbeing, but not of general life satisfaction. To explore the moderating role of gender and childcare responsibilities, we estimated two extended models: one including an interaction term between teleworking and gender, and another including an interaction between teleworking and the presence of children. We did not find evidence of gender differences among teleworkers or non‐teleworkers in commute wellbeing or life satisfaction. However, combining teleworking with childcare, especially for children under the age of six, was associated with lower life satisfaction, suggesting that the digital transition may reinforce existing social inequalities.

This study explores how digital communication technologies and informal actors facilitate and shape the communication and network development that support Syrian refugees in navigating integration in the Netherlands. It examines how digitalization introduces both opportunities and challenges in addressing language barriers, cultural differences, and bureaucratic procedures. Drawing on semi‐structured interviews with 14 Syrian refugees and six Arabic‐speaking mentors on whom they relied for support, the study demonstrates the significance of digital technologies and social networks in helping refugees navigate the increasingly digitalized Dutch welfare state and foster new social connections. The findings highlight the potential of platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook groups, and other online communities as dynamic tools for facilitating access to institutional information and for establishing both online and offline social networks. These networks are essential for building trust, which in turn supports the provision of translations, information verification, and navigation of digitalized procedures. In addition, the results show that offline interactions with mentors and intermediaries offer translated content and culturally contextualized guidance that further enhances integration. Overall, the study conceptualizes integration as a relational process shaped by the interplay between online and offline interactions.

Due to its very subject matter, research on transnational migration inevitably involves multiple languages. As a result, such research cannot be reduced to research where the researcher’s first language is English, but the interviewees’ first language is not; it needs to be expanded to interviews where the researcher and the interviewee speak the same language. Even then, however, their (class, race, gender) background may become an obstacle to understanding each other. In my research project on family life worlds under Jordanian citizenship law, I conducted semi‐structured interviews in Arabic without an interpreter. Arabic was the first language of my interviewees, but my third foreign language, which I speak and understand well, but not perfectly. This special interview situation seemed challenging and was initially due to a lack of financial resources for interpreters, which is often recommended (van Nes et al., 2010). In the course of my research, conducting interviews without an interpreter proved to be a helpful approach in order to take into account the co‐constitutive process of reality generation in qualitative research (Finlay, 2002). Grounded in feminist and intersectional methodologies, I developed a reflexive approach on how to deal with languages, (a lack of) understanding, and the corresponding power hierarchies in research processes. I argue that the balance of power between researchers and interviewees is changed by the fact that the interviewee is in a linguistically more capable position and thus may develop a different perception of his or her own agency. I propose epistemologically that an interview outside the interviewer’s first language can be a constant reminder of gaps in understanding and the different realities of the interviewer and the interviewee in the subsequent transcription, translation, and analysis steps (Larkin et al., 2007).

In two research projects conducted in Austria and Germany in the field of forced migration, we found similar challenges and potentials, namely, the methodological challenges of addressing multilingualism in a methodically controlled way and the potential of systematically analysing power dynamics within multilingual interviews using the documentary method. In this article, we illustrate the intertwining of language and power in multilingual qualitative research. Discussing two empirical examples in depth, we show that different data (with and without interpreters) are embedded in different power hierarchies, which need to be recognized. We also discuss the lessons we learned, as well as the limitations that we encountered, and conclude with a call to navigate through the ambiguities of migration societies that are reflected in multilingual research realities.

Reflexive migration research emphasizes the critical examination of knowledge production—particularly concerning researchers’ positionalities, the categories they employ, and the institutional contexts in which they operate. We aim to extend this research stream by systematically engaging with linguistic positioning, which remains an underexplored feature in migration studies. Hence, our article critically engages with the multilingual challenges encountered in a sub‐study of our project, The Art of Arriving, which reconstructively examined the experiences of individuals who fled Ukraine to Austria during the early months of Russia’s war of aggression. Our contribution pursues two main objectives. First, we highlight the linguistic challenges that arose at various stages of the research process—including material collection, field access, data collection, translation, and reconstructive data analysis—and critically reflect on the strategies we adopted to address them. The active involvement of researchers with both cultural and linguistic expertise, combined with a reflexive and continuous dialogue within the entire research team, was crucial for navigating the multilingual research landscape. Second, we argue that translation processes in such projects should not merely be viewed as obstacles to overcome. Instead, these processes should be recognized as integral to the research itself. When critically reflected upon and facilitated through dialogue with culturally and linguistically familiar researchers, multilingualism can even enable deeper and more nuanced reconstructive analyses.

This study uses a bibliometric review of international research and 27 in‐depth interviews to investigate digital disparities among migrant groups in Türkiye. We aim to understand how gender, as well as emotional, linguistic, and structural factors influence digital inclusion. The interviews demonstrate how these problems manifest across Türkiye’s varied migrant communities, while the bibliometric analysis identifies global themes such as digital literacy, access, trust, and language barriers. The primary obstacles, which are frequently exacerbated by gender and legal status, are monolingual e‐government platforms, low digital trust, and reliance on family for online access. The results show that social and emotional aspects of digital inclusion are involved, requiring institutions to be sensitive, build trust, and ensure linguistic accessibility. The study integrates infrastructure with lived experience‐based policies, proposing culturally sensitive, linguistically inclusive, and emotionally sensitive strategies. For other areas with sizable migrant populations, this strategy offers a scalable model.

This article examines how platform‐mediated food delivery work shapes the socio‐economic inclusion and exclusion of migrants in Italy, Poland, and Spain. Drawing on 60 in‐depth interviews with migrant riders in Turin, Warsaw, and Barcelona, the study adopts a comparative ethnographic approach to examine how distinct regulatory models—Italy’s “dual‐track,” Poland’s “contractual bricolage,” and Spain’s “regulated exclusion”—shape migrant inclusion in platform labour markets. Despite these differences, the findings reveal a striking convergence: migrant riders across all three contexts face legal ambiguity, economic insecurity, and algorithmic control, which together entrench their marginalisation. Theoretically, the article engages with scholarship on platform capitalism, migration governance, and informality to show how digital infrastructures and stratified legal regimes co‐produce new forms of labour exploitation. Migrants respond with informal strategies to navigate the contradictions between denied rights and urgent needs. These practices expose how platform logics of outsourcing and opacity align with state‐driven hierarchies of legal status to corner migrants into the most vulnerable segments of the labour market. The article concludes that the convergence of precarity is not incidental but structurally embedded in the interplay between digitalised labour regimes and exclusionary migration policies, calling for a rethinking of protections that address both technological and legal dimensions of inequality.