In a 2016 referendum, 51.9% of those who voted were in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. The ‘Brexit’ process – the practicalities of which are still largely unknown – was officially triggered in May 2017. Brexit may have serious implications for higher education in the United Kingdom and beyond. 

At present, the United Kingdom is the second-largest recipient of competitive research funding from the European Union after Germany. UK researchers are more likely to be chosen as leaders in collaborative funding bids and the United Kingdom is a favourite destination of individual recipients of research fellowships. 

Six percent of students and a staggering 17% of staff at UK universities are from other EU countries. While the prestige of UK higher education institutions plays a part in this success, the United Kingdom benefits from its position as a ‘gateway’ to Europe, attracting students and researchers for this reason also. 

In addition, nearly half of the academic papers produced by the United Kingdom are written in collaboration with at least one international partner – and among the top 20 countries UK academics cooperate the most with, 13 are in the European Union. A significant proportion of these jointly authored papers arise from research collaborations funded by the European Union. 

Finally, several key pan-European research facilities such as the High Power Laser Energy Research Facility are based in the United Kingdom. Free movement, which is guaranteed under the rules of EU membership at present, is essential for these research facilities to be used to their full potential. 

A ‘hard Brexit’ could be devastating for the UK higher education sector. Yet, it is clear that the UK higher education system will not be the only one affected in the event of a ‘hard Brexit’ where, in the worst-case scenario, EU students would be charged full international fees to study in the United Kingdom, freedom of movement for researchers would be restricted and the United Kingdom would no longer be able to participate in collaborative bids for funding.

Brexit and Europe research project

In this context, the Centre for Global Higher Education, based at the UCL Institute of Education in the UK, set out to investigate the potential impact of Brexit on higher education and research across Europe. 

We were able to gather researchers from 10 research centres on higher education in Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Switzerland as well as the United Kingdom. 

Over the following few months, 127 interviews were conducted across these countries with key individuals at the national level as well as with university leaders, academics and internationally mobile early-career researchers. Research participants were encouraged to reflect on the impact of Brexit on their institutions and their respective national systems. 

Between risk and opportunity: an uneven impact

The research revealed contrasting attitudes from one country to another. Strikingly, participants in Eastern European countries such as Hungary and Poland (as well as some interviewees in Portugal) expressed the view that they were not valued collaborators of the United Kingdom in the first place and that the impact of Brexit would therefore be relatively limited. 

The bigger countries in our study, such as Germany, may in fact benefit from a possible reallocation of funds. Northern European countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands were more ambivalent. On the one hand, given their performance in terms of grant capture and research productivity, and also given the fact they tend to offer courses in English, they are well positioned to benefit from a withdrawal of the United Kingdom. 

Yet, part of their success is due to their Anglo-Saxon orientation. In this sense, it was felt that the departure of the United Kingdom would compound the negative impact of political changes in the United States on future collaborations with valued partners. 

Dutch and Danish participants also made it clear that they relied on the United Kingdom as a political ally in discussions at the EU level – where there are tensions between countries favouring competitive research funding and countries preferring a less competitive and more egalitarian system. 

Ireland may find itself in an ambiguous situation, poised to benefit in terms of international student flows, yet largely dependent on the UK system in many ways. The fate of students and expatriates in the United Kingdom was also a matter of concern, in particular for Poland and Portugal. Overall, it was felt that the United Kingdom had a lot to lose in terms of attractiveness and reputation. 

UK participants were particularly concerned about the risk of losing funding in the humanities and social sciences, doubting that the UK government would replace the funding for these sectors in a context of the growing marketisation of higher education. Fears were also expressed by staff on temporary research contracts interviewed in Switzerland that non-permanent academics would suffer most. 

Reconfiguring the HE and research landscape 

While cooperation is a key principle of the current system, not all countries are equal partners. The Erasmus programme was designed as a reciprocal student exchange scheme. However, some countries receive a lot more students than they send: this is the case in particular of Ireland and the United Kingdom, where only a limited number of home students take up this European mobility opportunity. 

Success rates in European Research Council applications vary widely from one country to another, and networks of affinities are clearly discernible – often clustered around one of the bigger countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent Spain, France and Italy. 

Planning ahead for an unpredictable Brexit, in most countries interview participants envisaged replacing the United Kingdom with another strong research partner and-or reinforcing existing links within and outside the region. 

On the one hand, some participants – in particular academics – were eager to continue collaborating with their UK colleagues no matter what shape Brexit would take. On the other hand, the majority of research participants shared pragmatic views and emerging strategies to minimise the cost of Brexit to their own national systems and institutions; and these often implied partially excluding UK partners from collaborations. 

A threat to the European project at large 

EU membership has played a significant role in the success of the United Kingdom, but the research productivity and reputation of UK institutions have also helped the region in achieving great visibility in the global higher education and research landscape. 

One salient point that came up repeatedly across the study is a concern not only for the quality and reputation of European higher education and research, but for the future of the European project at large. 

Regional reputation would be under strain if the United Kingdom was completely cut off in ‘punishment’ for the Brexit vote. On the other hand, favourable terms and a more positive outcome for the United Kingdom might encourage anti-EU movements elsewhere.

A ‘hard Brexit’ could be devastating for the UK higher education sector. This would send a rather xenophobic message to potential international applicants and ultimately put the whole European project at risk. Brexit is thus a matter of concern on many different levels for the whole region. 

Aline Courtois is research associate, Centre for Global Higher Education, Institute of Education, University College London, United Kingdom. Email: a.courtois@ucl.ac.uk. The full report Higher Education and Brexit: Current European perspectives can be accessed at this link. This article was first published in the current edition of International Higher Education.