University Positioning in AI Policies

Comparative Insights From National Policies and Non‐State Actor Influences in China, the European Union, India, Russia, and the United States

Bibliographic Data

ID21592697
AuthorsSevgi Kaya-Kaşıkcı (0000-0003-0949-6877, Boston College), Sevgi Kaya‐Kasikci (Boston College Chestnut Hill Massachusetts USA), Chris R Gla (0000-0002-6706-5613, Boston College Chestnut Hill Massachusetts USA, corresponding author), Eglis Chacon Camero (0000-0003-2432-7748, Boston College Chestnut Hill Massachusetts USA), Ekaterina Minaeva (0000-0002-4605-5715, Boston College Chestnut Hill Massachusetts USA)
Year2025
Volume79
Issue4
Publication date2025-10-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHigher Education Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0951-5224 • E-ISSN: 1468-2273
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hequ.70062
OpenAlexW4414586489
LanguageEN
References cited22

This paper introduces a novel four‐dimensional analytical framework to examine how universities are positioned within national artificial intelligence strategies amid intensifying geopolitical competition. Through systematic document analysis of policy frameworks across eight major global actors—the United Kingdom, Russia, India, the European Union, China, the United States, BigTech, and UNESCO—we identify distinct governance typologies that determine higher education's role in artificial intelligence ecosystems. Our findings quantify significant variations in how universities are instrumentalized across governance contexts—from talent pipelines in market‐led systems to state‐directed innovation hubs in centralised approaches. We document the emergence of value‐aligned ‘strategic education blocs’ replacing universal academic networks, with India demonstrating unexpected leadership in education‐specific policy provisions. This research advances the theoretical understanding of “technological statecraft” in higher education, demonstrating how the interplay between sovereignty concerns, regulatory philosophies, value systems, and public‐private dynamics creates systematically different operating environments for universities across geopolitical contexts. These findings provide critical benchmarks for understanding institutional positioning in the global artificial intelligence landscape and challenge conventional internationalisation frameworks in an era of technological nationalism

Corporate governance · Foreign policy · Geopolitics · Higher education · Internationalization · Sovereignty · University-Industry-Government Innovation Models

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access