This paper assesses expertise and efficacy as pedagogical resources in teaching European politics. Analysis is based on a survey of 150 socio-political teachers at post-primary level in the Republic of Ireland, conducted in the current academic year. Analysis considers the distribution of expertise and efficacy and their role as resources for teaching European politics. Its theoretical basis falls within frames of political socialisation and political engagement in political science and educational discsiplines. The study reflects on the impact of curriculum design and teacher support, as features of national contexts. Finally, it explores teachers' recommendations for enhancing the teaching of European politics given the current setting of adoelscent learning.

Studies in education, political science, and sociology affirm the importance of teachers as agents of political socialisation. Teaching style and classroom activities have been found to impact elements of youth political engagement and mitigate individual socio-economic effects. The efficacy and experience of political educators thereby impacts the socialisation and development of young citizens’ socio-political attributes and identities. The paper aims to open a wider consideration on the theoretical and practical concerns of teaching European politics within the limitations of national curricula and contexts.

No single national decision in recent European history has dealt as big a blow to the “European project” as has Brexit. But what did the UK’s unilateral decision to leave the European Union do to the general outlook and self-image of the European Studies scholar? Brexit aside, what do European Studies scholars feel when they watch the news, especially as and when they concern one of their areas of expertise? How much do their privately held beliefs, norms, preferences and attitudes towards their object of study factor into their decision to e.g. research one policy area over another, adopt one kind of theory or epistemology over another, pick one set of case studies over another etc.? And in turn, what role do individual academic career trajectories and professional aspirations play in these decisions? While gathering reliable data would be possible but difficult for a number of reasons, it would arguably be just as difficult to contend that these factors do not matter, especially in an area of research that is so ripe with normativity, teleology, and cultural centrism. This paper systematically explores the existing literature to identify ways in which one could substantiate such an introspective view and puts forward an analytical framework that caters to the specificities of the sub-discipline as much as it acknowledges the parallels it shares with other relatively self-contained fields of study; fields like sociology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, that each have much more of a track record of openly self-reflective research practices; fields that should and could naturally inform European integration scholarship but for one reason or another have not left much of an imprint on key conceptual and empirical debates. Methodologically, the paper makes a point of not exclusively relying on English-language publications and thus adopts a “polyphonic” perspective in the true sense of the word. It represents a friendly invitation for peer-to-peer discussion while very much acknowledging the important groundwork that has been undertaken by some of the “dissident voices” in our sub-field. The paper is as much a thought experiment as it is a genuinely well-intentioned call for a long overdue post-disciplinary turn; a call that consciously avoids the term “bias” because the underlying endeavour is much more existentialist than it is methodological.

In recent decades, the number of international students in European higher education has grown substantially. OECD data from 2021 shows that the number of international students enrolled in higher education has even tripled since 1998. This rise of international students in Europe is largely due to the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area, which have stimulated cross-border exchange between academic staff and students in higher education.

The advance of an increasingly diverse and international student body is not without its challenges. Scholars have, for instance, highlighted how cultural and linguistic diversity can complicate interaction between students. Yet, by and large research shows that the internationalisation of higher education is a positive development that is beneficial for students’ learning and future careers. For instance, because students can acquire intercultural skills that are important in today’s globalised society.

Recent political debates about internationalisation in several European countries – including Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom – have however called into question the benefits of the internationalisation of higher education. Arguments put forward range from decreased access to higher education for national students, via economic arguments about costs, to specific arguments about the availability of housing.

In this paper we explore these debates in more detail. We compare the debates in Germany, where there is continued support for internationalisation of higher education, and the Netherlands, where the political debate has become increasingly critical. What is at stake in these debates? What is being discussed? Does the remit of the debates and strategies used in those debates differ? And, if so, why are there differences in the framing of the same issue? To answer these questions we conduct a content analysis of parliamentary debates and governmental strategies (to answer the what), supplemented by newspaper articles (to get to the why).