CC BY
4
Review Article
UDC: 378.014.621 378.091.8
d 10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-2-437-450
Received: May 30, 2024. Revised: August 05, 2024. Accepted: August 24, 2024.
'Il) Check for updates
Participation of Students in all Areas of Governance in Higher Education Institutions in the Light ofthe Literature-A Systematic Review
1 Eôtvôs Lorând University, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Doctoral School of Education, Budapest, Hungary
e-mail: rejenim@student.elte.hu
2 Eôtvôs Lorând University, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Doctoral School of Education, Budapest, Hungary
e-mail: lauralzmeter@student.elte.hu 3 Eôtvôs Lorând University, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Budapest, Hungary e-mail: ronay.zoltan@ppk.elte.hu
Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive methodology for conducting a systematic literature review on student participation in higher education institutions (HEIs), focusing on decision-making, student engagement, and extracurricular activities. Following PRISMA guidelines, the review uses evaluation criteria techniques to ensure the quality and transparency of information critical to the design of the paper. A search strategy utilising key terms across EBSCO and Web of Science databases identified 41 relevant articles. Each article underwent thorough analysis, addressing research inquiries about student participation in educational institutions. The review combines findings from diverse perspectives while highlighting students' importance in decision-making and the relevance of student voices in this process. In addition, it highlights the importance of student engagement and the impact of extracurricular activities on academic success. Through such discussions, the paper emphasises the need for integrated frameworks focused on understanding student participation across higher education institutions, suggesting recommendations for optimising student involvement or participation in decision-making processes, fostering student engagement in teaching and learning, and enhancing participation in extracurricular activities. Overall, the paper highlights the multi-dynamic nature of student participation in the modern structure of higher education institutions and advocates for a holistic approach that empowers and motivates students to participate in all areas of the education system, which will go a long way in shaping their educational experiences.
Keywords: Highereducationinstitutions, Student participation, Decision-making, Student engagement, Extracurricular activities
This paper discusses students' roles and participation within the higher education institution (HEI) system from the angles of decision-making and student voice. In addition, it will analyse the influence of student engagement and participation in extracurricular activities on the design structure of modern higher education. This is purposefully done through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) of articles and studies in the field of student participation in HEI that aligns with the intentions of this paper, which is to portray the various ways of student participation in HEI. By so doing, we distinguished that this literature put student participation within three major categories.
The first is decision-making and student voice, which includes studies about university governance and decision-making processes, either as individuals or through student organisations, advocating for greater inclusiveness. Followed by this are studies on student engagement focused on shaping the teaching and learning processes. In addition, these studies are particularly interested in student participation in extracurricular activities concerning academic performance. The review is done this way to decrease the likelihood of inaccurate conclusions being reached through chance but through proper examination of various works in this field of study and to present the ideas concerning student participation.
The objective of this paper is to review diverse academic research and identify the key areas
'Corresponding author: rejenim@student.elte.hu
Enim Rejubi Peter1" , Alzmeter Laura2 , Rônay Zoltân3
Introduction
© 2024 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
where student participation is prominent within higher education institutions, particularly in academic and administrative domains. By integrating and analyzing various studies, the aim is to highlight how students participate in decision-making processes within higher education systems.
Additionally, the paper explores other significant dimensions of student participation, including their engagement in extracurricular activities, which are crucial areas of interest and impact for students in higher education.
In this article, we recognise that student participation is sometimes thought of as encompassing a broad spectrum of ideas such as learning styles, teaching methods aimed at fostering active participation, considerations of attendance patterns, and the involvement of students in educational governance.
However, it is critical to mention that this paper focuses specifically on student participation in administrative procedures, governance and decision-making processes, and out-of-the-lecture room participation within the higher education institutional structure, often called "student voice".
The growing focus on students as customers in higher education policy and implementation, along with the use of student's voice as evaluative criteria within the processes and corners of higher education institutions, underscores the growing interest and clamour for students' participation in all areas of HEI. (Luescher-Mamashela, 2010)
In 2008, the former United Kingdom (UK) Higher Education Academy (HEA) chief executive, delivered a report to the universities minister, Bill Rammell, titled 'The Future of Higher Education Teaching and the Student Experience.' The purpose of this report was to serve as a guideline for decisions made on policies concerning student and teacher-based experiences for the upcoming decade or so. (Ramsden, 2008)
Within the report, Ramsden identifies worldwide race as a significant challenge and proposes that the aim should be focused on positioning a partnership between providers and students in the higher education system epicentre of the UK. (White, 2018)
Within the university government policy, university students are increasingly portrayed as consumers encouraged to engage with their degree studies pragmatically to maximise personal benefits and gains. Consequently, students are expected to adopt a strategic and instrumental approach, essentially becoming active participants in their university community as part of the gains while in the system. Accordingly, the increasing marketisation of the higher education sector has increased the significance of the need for students' input and influence on quality assurance endeavours, amongst others. Hence, there is a need for active student citizenry within the institution. (Mendes and Hammett, 2023)
Theoretical framework of power dynamic for student participation
The idea and concept of student participation have also become a widespread focus in the policies and practices within and around the higher education system. Nonetheless, critics have argued that despite its popularity, the concept of student participation needs a coherent theoretical foundation. Higher education institutions employ the notion of student participation in numerous, often vague and ambiguous ways as they develop different policies to encourage students' participation throughout their academic journey. (Buckley, 2014)
The notion of student participation often suggests the traditional concept of elected student government and councils. However, such student governments are now viewed not merely as information-gathering entities but as vehicles for fostering participation in decision-making and granting access to the governance structure in universities. (Kuruuzum et al., 2005)
We are delving into the normative endeavour of promoting student voice in educational settings and students' democratic participation rights within HEI processes. At its core are the values guiding student voice practices and the dimension of power and power dynamics by scrutinising the theoretical basis of student voice, including its relationship with power and its historical roots in radical pedagogy. The potential contribution of postmodernist analyses is part of a deeper understanding of student voice practices. Emphasising the need for ongoing theoretical exploration rather than premature synthesis, there is a need to initiate a critical discourse on the complex interplay between power dynamics, student voice, and participation to ignite broader theoretical debates in the field. (Taylor and Robinson, 2009)
However, the theoretical framework revolves around the "students as co-constructors" paradigm, recognising students as pivotal contributors to maintaining and improving the quality of educational pro-
grams. Ideally, most student government organisations should adopt the viewpoint that collaboration entails empowering students to actively participate in shaping knowledge, learning, and the entirety of higher education. (Moyo and Boti, 2020)
Materials and Methods
Objectives of the Paper
The objective of this paper is shaped around the ideology of examining various scholarly works to ascertain the areas of interest and influence where student participation has gained attention in HEI, especially across the academic and administrative spectrum. Hence, the objectives are categorised into the following:
• Establish a solid base in this paper through a combination and review of different studies to show the areas and influence of student participation in decision-making within the HEI system.
• In addition, the paper seeks to show other critical aspects that shape student participation initiatives, such as student engagement in teaching and learning and extracurricular activities. These are vital aspects of influence and interest for students in HEI.
• Questions as basis forthe review
• The review is structured on the following research questions:
• What are the common considerations among scholars about the influence of student participation in the decision-making of the Higher Education Institutions (HEI)?
• What areas are students interested in participating within the HEI identified by scholars?
Methodology of the Paper
We conducted a systematic review to fulfil our objectives, drawing from the PRISMA directives (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Additionally, we ensured that we used evaluation criteria that would provide us with the best quality, transparency, and replicability.
The Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is crucial for navigating a specific field's vast expanse of knowledge. Its objectives enable researchers to chart and access the existing intellectual landscape while pinpointing gaps and posing inquiries for future investigations. (Tranfield et al., 2003)
Originating in medical sciences and subsequently adopted extensively in the social sciences, the Systematic Literature Review sets itself apart from conventional narrative reviews through its commitment to a transparent, systematic, and reproducible approach, thereby enhancing the rigour of the process. (Tranfield et al., 2003)
Search Strategy
From formulating these research questions, the next step involves delineating the search criteria. The initial term selected was "Student Participation", which was queried within quotation marks to ensure comprehensive coverage. Considering the research aims, this term was contextualised within the educational domain. To achieve this, a combination of five terms was explored: "higher education institution", "decision-making", "University", "extra-curricular activities" and "Student engagement".
To conduct this review, we employed searches across the databases EBSCO and the repository of the Web of Science. Our search criteria focused on identifying articles published in international scientific journals from 2005 to 2024.
The selection of these databases was deliberate as they align with some of the most expansive research repositories commonly employed in literature reviews. Opting for two databases was strategic to mitigate the possibility of overlooking relevant documents due to their distinct publication coverage. Moreover, the decision to utilise both EBSCO and Web of Science stems from their utilisation of distinct search mechanisms, rendering it impractical to apply identical parameters across both database platforms.
Following this, the researchers individually examined the complete texts of 41 publications, focusing mainly on four elements: (a) the aims and research inquiries, (b) the methodologies employed, (c) the
findings, and (d) the geographical location of the publication. This scrutiny facilitated the elimination of works that did not align with the inclusion criteria.
Study Selection Procedure
The search procedures took place in March 2024. Regarding the EBSCO and Web of Science databases, the outcomes were as follows: employing the search term "Student Participation" along with "higher education institution", "decision-making", "University", "extra-curricular activities", and "Student engagement" in subfields of the databases provided the possibility to find the best article for the paper. 621 documents were identified (513 in Web of Science and 108 in EBSCO). Subsequently, filters were applied, including English language, research areas (education, educational research, higher education research), and document type (article) without temporal restrictions, excluding 492 documents. One reason was due to duplication across both databases.
Another round of screening was implemented, this time focusing on assessing abstracts and discovering duplication across both databases. This resulted in the exclusion of 63 articles deemed irrelevant to the research objective and needing a more specific reference to student participation in higher education institutions, which revolves around extracurricular activities, decision-making, and governance.
Following these screening procedures, all retained articles were thoroughly reviewed, during which an additional 25 articles were deemed unsuitable for the review purposes.
Following this procedure, 41 articles were selected for subsequent examination. Further graphical summaries explain the criteria and search methodology employed and designed by the authors using Microsoft Soft Visio (MS Visio) and the Mendeley software to properly track and represent the references in the paper.
The analysis of the 41 articles (see TableAl & FigureAl) led to each article undergoing examination, such as content analysis, which was conducted to address the research inquiries posed and to pinpoint potential avenues for further investigation.
Figure I. Flowchart ofthe Study Selection procedure Source: Elaborated by the authors using MS Visio
Results
Decision-making and Student Voice
Seale's research highlights a gap in understanding student voice transformative potential in higher education. Little discourse exists on translating these concepts into practical student voice initiatives. Seale proposes a participatory method, promising to empower students and enhance the university administration's responsiveness to feedback. However, the short duration of these projects suggests the need for long-term evaluations to assess their full impact. (Seale, 2010)
The complexities of student participation and the inclusion of student voice within a UK university faculty, using the Communities of Practice (CoP) framework. While CoP helps understand engagement and organisational boundaries, it also highlights disparities between staff and student engagement. The study emphasises the importance of recognising student representation as a legitimate participation in HEI, suggesting potential shifts in CoP dynamics. Although no specific solutions are provided, the research underscores the need for scholarly efforts to develop more equitable and inclusive approaches. Ultimately, the evolving nature of communities of practice offers optimism for future collaboration between student representatives and staff, fostering healthier partnerships in institutional governance (Flint and O'Hara, 2013). Students as Partners (SaP) within HEI is progressing, with partnership approaches striving to acknowledge students as credible sources of knowledge and foster more egalitarian relationships between students and staff. This trend is becoming more prevalent in higher education. (de Bie, 2022; Mercer-Mapstone et al., 2017)
The question is whether student voice truly empowers, particularly in higher education governance. Despite institutional efforts, students often feel their input needs to have a significant impact. These channels, perceived as control mechanisms by the administration, only sometimes lead to student empowerment. It is therefore suggested that examining how student involvement is structured within higher education to understand its effects. (Freeman, 2016)
Fletcher's (2017) study highlights the need for genuine student input beyond learning and teaching. He identifies five pathways for comprehensive student engagement:
I. Elevating the visibility of student contributions within higher education.
II. Empowering students to be agents of change.
III. Creating safe environments for student expression.
IV. Educating students on broader issues.
V. Fostering active participation in policy feedback and revisions. (Fletcher, 2017)
Higher education institutions promote active citizenship through initiatives like Campus Compact, which involves over 1,000 universities in the United States of America (USA). Founded in the mid-1980s, Campus Compact underscores higher education's role in fostering engaged citizenship. Such initiatives are socially responsible and address broader societal needs. (Miles et al., 2008; Miller et al., 2012)
Efforts to enhance student participation may encounter challenges, including discrepancies in the perceived importance of student involvement between staff and students. Conflicting expectations and resource constraints can hinder effective collaboration between departments and staff-student initiatives. (Islam et al., 2021)
Despite concerns about potential distancing between students and staff due to increased participation, examples like the 2012 Kovacs Crisis at UWC in South Africa demonstrate the effectiveness of student involvement. The Student Representative Council successfully negotiated a decrease in student accommodation costs, highlighting the importance of active student engagement in decision-making processes, even within public-private partnership frameworks.(Mugume and Luescher, 2015)
Through this example, it becomes increasingly apparent that student participation within the channel of student governance creates part of the nucleus of the university administration system, and their interest and power dynamic has become increasingly present. This leads to the establishment of a typology of student governance by outlining four distinct aspects of student governance regimes (the community of scholars, representative-democratic university, prestigious national university, and market-oriented university) that can be identified based on various perspectives of the university. (Luescher-Mamashela, 2010)
National-bureaucratic regime of the
Prestigious National University (Trust/Cam pliance)
c \ ti \ U) VI \ lli X H \ n
Donnish regime of the Community of Scholars (Authority/Coercionl X; Managerialisation Managerial regime of the Market-Oriented University (Reciprocity/Exchange)
Donnish Restoration f x^ ? \ 3 C X Sä \ tl g \ 3. x 0' 3
Corporatist-democratic regime of the Representatlve-Democratic University {Acco u nta t>i lity/Suspici or ) External vs. Internal Predominant Orientation
Figure II. a typologyofstudentgovernance Source: (Carey, 2018)
The focus of the typology outlined examines the political dynamics between students and universities by categorising the diverse relationships between them into different regimes of student governance, which remains a massive channel for student participation in decision-making and student voice. It views shifts in this connection as transformations between these regimes. This typology is a systematic tool for analysing the various operational structures of student governance, specifically emphasising student participation in university governance. (Luescher-Mamashela, 2010) Therefore, it is essential to consider the activities the university mandates, anticipates or sanctions alongside frameworks that focus on students' actions. This concept is presented through a Nested Hierarchy of Student participation and interactions, depicted in the figure below. This model correlates student roles with institutional roles, showing how institutions influence and inspire student behaviour and participation approaches. (Carey, 2018)
Figure III. Nested HierarchyofStudentParticipation Source: (Carey, 2018)
Moving away from a general worldview of student participation and taking a more geographical look into the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the concept of student participation in governance faces tensions stemming from conflicting views on the reasons and roles of higher education (HE). While the
Bologna Process emphasises the multiple purposes of HE, the European Union's modernisation agenda precedes higher education's role in serving the knowledge-based economy of the continent. Although the Bologna papers do not prescribe governance reforms, the European Commission's contributions reflect the ideology of new public management in HE. Governments and HE institutions adopt these recommendations, albeit with variations influenced by national and institutional processes. (Klemencic, 2012b) Despite their varied and heterogeneous nature, the prevailing direction in governance models across European universities is toward greater institutional autonomy, resulting in increased financial independence, heightened accountability, and amplified managerial oversight. This transition comes with an increase in the dominance of executive and authority entities within higher education establishments, frequently resulting in reduced authority and sway among established governing authorities. The legitimate bolstering of administrative leadership roles and greater engagement of external stakeholders characterise this process. (Planas et al., 2013)
On the other hand, the organisational evolution of FZS (Freier Zusammenschluss von Studen-tinnenschaften), the student union national organisation in Germany, shows us the transformation and journey of student participation. Its development traced from its inception to 2010 and concluded that over recent decades, the student organisation FZS in Germany has undergone significant transformations, evolving from a smaller, ideologically driven network to a more professionally structured umbrella organisation. Various political developments, such as the Bologna procedures and shifts in higher education legislation among the German states, influenced these changes. Increased formal student participation and external pressures, like tuition fee debates, initially led to the growth and professionalisation of this organisation. Subsequent factors, which include the bringing in payment of tuition fees in some states and diminishing federal influence in higher education policy, have challenged FZS's influence and led to declining membership and reform capabilities. (Jungblut and Weber, 2012)
Despite students being recognised as a significant constituency in Europe and typically participating in higher education governance, it is remarkable how limited scholarly research on student-representative organisations exists. This scarcity of research may stem from a broader lack of study into domestic and European higher education politics rather than an assumption that student associations hold marginal roles in these spheres. (Klemencic, 2012a; Matthews and Dollinger, 2023)
Student Engagement
Student engagement originates from the constructivist notion that an individual's active participation moulds learning in meaningful educational endeavours. It is perceived as a collaborative endeavour shaped by institutions and educators who establish the environment, opportunities, and expectations for student involvement. However, individual learners are still considered the central figures in discussions concerning engagement. (Matthews, 2016)
In market-driven higher education systems, there is a growing focus on student engagement and partnership, driven by practices of high-impact educational performances.(Trogden et al., 2023) Marketisa-tion pervades higher education and high-impact educational practices, creating disparities between consumers and producers and leading to inefficiencies. To address these imbalances, policymakers promoting a market-oriented approach to higher education typically seek to empower students by offering more information or amplifying their voices. This approach stems from viewing students from the angle of consumers within the circle of an uneven market dynamic. Consequently, participation-based policies are introduced to encourage students, bolster their independence, and address inequality between the HEI producers and students as consumers, particularly evident in Western higher education systems. (White, 2018)
Student engagement has received increased attention in recent years, often with the belief that it can oppose neoliberal agendas and practices of teaching and learning in education. (Holen et al., 2021) Sometimes, student engagement is termed the 'tyranny of participation' because of its modern approach to integrating students deeper into higher education establishments. (Gourlay, 2015) However, researchers and policymakers now view student engagement as a positive aspect of higher education. (Ashwin and Mcvitty, 2015)
A survey among undergraduate students and academic faculty from three Chinese universities explored collaborative practices through student engagement. The study focused on 17 students participating in Student as Partners (SaP) activities and initiatives. The study revealed widespread agreement
among the participants on the importance of such collaborative processes. This study's students and faculty members demonstrated that active participation in SaP practices is necessary in HEI. The study echoed trends observed in Western contexts, albeit with minor variations in areas like course representation and governance activities. (Liang and Matthews, 2021)
Ultimately, the aim of further initiatives for student engagement should involve collaborating with learners and tackling the challenge of shared responsibility to establish the potential for achieving a mutual sense of accountability concerning both students and their ongoing education. (Cook-Sather, 2010)
Participation in Extracurricular activities
Student engagement has become a widespread focus in the policies and practices within and around the higher education system. Nonetheless, critics have said student participation needs a coherent theoretical foundation despite its popularity. In reality, higher education institutions employ the notion of student participation in numerous, often vague and ambiguous ways, as they bring forth different policies to encourage students' participation throughout their academic journey. (Blair and Valdez, 2014; Buckley, 2014)The HEI landscape has student participation in deciding the university's extracurricular activity (ECA). Such a governance structure is predominantly driven by quality assurance and enhancement efforts. For example, this mirrors a broader trend in Europe, emphasising increased student partaking in quality-based initiatives, including ECA assessment. For instance, UK policy directives echo this sentiment. The Quality Assurance Agency in the UK urges HEI to actively involve students, either as a group or as individuals, in partnership, which leads to ensuring and improving the experiences within the institution, which can be said to include, most certainly, extra-curricular activities. (Gvaramadze, 2011)
When it comes to student extracurricular activities, student governments, known by various names such as guilds, societies, unions, or councils, play a central role in representing student interests within higher education institutions and taking responsibility for organising such activities. (Kennedy and Pek, 2023)
Their primary function is to represent the students across various areas of the HEI set-up. Part of this includes extracurricular activities where a team of representatives works to advocate for the student body. To do this effectively, proper representation and discussion regarding all matters of concern to students must be addressed in such interactions with university authorities. (Enright et al., 2017)
Amidst the complexities of higher education (HE) settings, ongoing discussions revolve around extracurricular activities (ECAs) and students' involvement in such activities within this environment. (Dickinson et al., 2021). This evolving method, which involves student participation in teaching and learning processes, for example, can influence students, the public, educational curricula, and the higher education system. (Nowell et al., 2024)
Relevance of ECA to Academic Success
Regarding extracurricular activities involvement among higher education (HE) students, 294 participants from a Higher Education Institution (HEI) in the northern parts of England participated in a survey. This survey evaluated students' perceptions of their effectiveness in academic performance and social interactions. Additionally, 54 of these students completed a follow-up survey. The main discovery was a favourable link between participation in certain extracurricular activities and students' self-confidence about academic success within the university setting. (Griffiths et al., 2021a)
Recognition of the importance of ECA as a critical part of the HEI set-up has been established as being connected to students' success in the classroom and in their academics. However, if left only to the administration to make crucial decisions to achieve the institution's goals and execute these decisions without the involvement of students, it will lack credibility. The design and implementation of the extracurricular activities should also include the students and not just to partake in. Administrators and students who are part of the decision-making process are tasked with choosing the most appropriate option from a range of options that will be most pleasing to the students, especially in areas pertaining to their academics. (Gul, 2010)
Shared authority is vital for effective governance in higher education institutions (HEIs). Traditionally, decision-making rested solely with administrators. However, diverse tasks, such as participation in university extracurricular activities, require collaboration among students, faculty, administrative staff, and
support personnel. Inclusive processes such as ECA have been refined over time, recognising that decisions made on campus impact everyone involved, including the teaching and learning process, particularly students. This highlights the importance of active involvement in all student and university relationship processes. (Dundar, 2013)
In a separate research involving university students revealed that those who had either graduated from their undergraduate program or were in their final year had engaged in extracurricular activities outside their coursework. The students noted these activities' significance in their academic success. (King et al., 2021a).
Discussions
The current state of research literature aids in examining various aspects of student participation in higher education institutions by systematically condensing the existing body of literature and separating it into three topic areas.
It became intriguing that student voice is critical in decision-making. Student engagement and extracurricular activities also contribute to student participation in HEIs. The literature concerns more than just genuine student input; it focuses on learning and teaching and encompasses the broader student experience. Student participation is contingent upon institutional requirements, indicating that the institution's parameters constrain participation.
Decision-making goes along with student participation, whether as individuals or as part of the institution, in areas such as student governance or involvement in the structure of university governance through the decision-making process or by demanding more student inclusiveness in university governance (Student Voice).
The literature in this category on student engagement clearly shows the necessity for a harmonious blend of student involvement in shaping the academic framework of higher education institutions. It advocates for increased student participation in designing and structuring the teaching and learning processes within the higher education system.
Also, participation in extracurricular activities particularly emphasises the connection between engagement in social activities and academic performance. Therefore, the literature review in this area explores the correlation between students' academic achievements and their level of participation.
Conclusions
This article explores the common considerations among scholars regarding the influence of student participation in the decision-making processes of higher education institutions (HEI). Through the analysis of various cases and scenarios, the influence of student participation is categorized into four main areas: governance within HEIs, the increasing demands from the perspective of students as consumers, the communitarian-based influence that views students as integral community members, and the democratic approach that grants students citizenship rights to participate in voting and decision-making processes.
Instead of viewing these perspectives as mutually exclusive, the article proposes integrating them into a comprehensive framework to comprehensively analyze student participation across different levels and domains of HEIs. This holistic approach will provide a more inclusive understanding of the various dimensions of student participation and engagement. (Luescher-Mamashela, 2013)
The article also aimed to address areas of students' interest in participating in the HEI identified by scholars. To that end, it was established that the absence of clear roles for students, or the perception that roles vary depending on the context, dramatically contributes to these uncertainties throughout the higher education landscape of areas of interest. This ranges from national or student regulatory bodies providing vague guidance on the concept of 'student participation' to the risk of marginalising student perspectives or areas of interest within academic-related boards and councils related to the teaching and learning process. Hence, relatively limited attention is given to student roles in academic literature focusing on student engagement and participation outside of methods that include teaching and learning procedures. (Naylor et al., 2020)
Therefore, we should draw from the diverse factors identified and create a conclusion to optimise
and understand the areas of student interest for participation. By doing so, we can dissect areas of participation into three parts: decision-making in governance in HEI, student engagement, which in itself encompasses the teaching and learning process, and participation in extra-curricular activities. Achieving an optimal understanding of all three areas for student participation necessitates implementing changes at both national and institutional levels, which can effectively motivate and empower students to engage actively and positively. (Palma et al., 2023)
In addition, some of the literature utilized for this paper highlights a positive connection between involvement in certain extracurricular activities and students' confidence in their academic success at university. Recognizing extracurricular activities as essential to the higher education framework is crucial for student success both inside and outside the classroom. Decisions about these activities must involve students to maintain credibility and effectiveness. Shared governance, including collaboration among students, faculty, and administrators, is critical to effective management. Students who had graduated or were nearing graduation highlighted the significant role of extracurricular activities in their academic achievements. (Griffiths et al., 2021; King et al., 2021)
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors Contributions
Conceptualisation, E.R.P., A.L., and R.Z.; methodology, E.R.P., A.L.; software, E.R.P., A.L., and R.Z.; formal analysis, E.R.P., A.L., and R.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, E.R.P., A.L., and R.Z.; writing—review and editing, E.R.P., A.L., and R.Z.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
References
Ashwin, P., & Mcvitty, D. (2015). The meaning of Student Engagement: Implications for Policies and Practices. The European
Higher Education Area, 343-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0 Blair, E., & Valdez, N. K. (2014). Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: Is the student voice being heard? AssessmentandEvaluationin HigherEducation, 39(7), 879-894. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.875984
Buckley, A. (2014). How radical is student engagement? (And what is it for?). Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 3(2), 1-23. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/58102/
Carey, P. (2018). The impact of institutional culture, policy and process on student engagement in university decision-making. Perspectives: Policyand Practice in HigherEducation, 22(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1168754
Cook-Sather, A. (2010). Students as learners and teachers: Taking responsibility, transforming education, and redefining accountability. Curriculum Inquiry, 40(4), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2010.00501.x
de Bie, A. (2022). Respectfully distrusting 'Students as Partners' practice in higher education: applying a Mad politics of partnership. Teachingin HigherEducation, 27(6), 717-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1736023 Dickinson, J., Griffiths, T. L., & Bredice, A. (2021). 'It's just another thing to think about': encouraging students' engagement in extracurricular activities. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(6), 744-757. https://doi.org/10.1080/030987 7X.2020.1813263
Dundar, S. (2013). Students' participation to the decision-making process as a tool for democratic school. Kuram ve Uygula-mada Egitim Bilimleri, 13(2), 867-875.
Enright, E., Coll, L., Ni Chrôinin, D., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2017). Student voice as risky praxis: democratising physical education teacher education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(5), 459-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2016.1225031 Fletcher, A. (2017). Studentvoicerevolution: The meaningfulstudentinvolvementhandbook. Common Action Publishing. Flint, A., & O'Hara, M. (2013). Communities of practice and 'student voice': engaging with student representatives at the faculty level. Student Engagement and Experience Journal, 2(1). https://journals.shu.ac.uk/index.php/seej/article/view/63
Freeman, R. (2016). Is student voice necessarily empowering? Problematising student voice as a form of higher education governance. HigherEducation Research and Development, 35(4), 859-862. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1172764
Gourlay, L. (2015). "Studentengagemenf'andthe tyrannyofparticipation.
Griffiths, T. L., Dickinson, J., & Day, C. J. (2021). Exploring the relationship between extracurricular activities and student self-efficacy within university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45(9), 1294-1309. https://doi.org/10.1080/030987 7X.2021.1951687
Gul, H. (2010). Partcipation of Students councils in Decision making at Uni in Turkey. Collage Student Journal, 44(2), 568-578. Gvaramadze, I. (2011). Student engagement in the Scottish quality enhancement framework. Quality in Higher Education,
17(1), 19-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.554310 Holen, R., Ashwin, P., Maassen, P., & Stensaker, B. (2021). Student partnership: exploring the dynamics in and between different conceptualizations. Studiesin HigherEducation, 46(12), 2726-2737. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1770717
Islam, M., Burnett, T.-L., & Collins, S.-L. (2021). Trilateral partnership: An institution and students' union collaborative partnership project to support underrepresented student groups. international Journal for Students as Partners, 5(1), 76-85. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v5i1.4455 Jungblut, J., & Weber, R. (2012). National student governance in Germany: the case of fzs. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(1), 47-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.683701 Kennedy, J., & Pek, S. (2023). Mini-publics, student participation, and universities deliberative capacity. Studies in Higher
Education, 48(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2111551 King, A. E., McQuarrie, F. A. E., & Brigham, S. M. (2021a). Exploring the Relationship Between Student Success and Participation in Extracurricular Activities. SCHOLE: Ajournai of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 36(1-2), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2020.1760751
King, A. E., McQuarrie, F. A. E., & Brigham, S. M. (2021b). Exploring the Relationship Between Student Success and Participation in Extracurricular Activities. SCHOLE: Ajournai of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 36(1-2), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1937156X.2020.1760751 Klemencic, M. (2012a). European Higher Education at the Crossroads. European Higher Education at the Crossroads, 631653. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6 Klemencic, M. (2012b). Student representation in Western Europe: introduction to the special issue. European Journal of
HigherEducation, 2(1), 2-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.695058 Kuruuzum, A., Asilkan, O., & Cizel, R. B. (2005). Student participation in higher education institutions in Turkey. HigherEducation in Europe, 30(3-4), 345-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720600625077
Liang, Y., & Matthews, K. E. (2021). Students as partners in China: Investigating the potentials and possibilities for growing practices across universities. international Journal for Students as Partners, 5(2), 28-47. https://doi.org/10.15173/ ijsap.v5i2.4767
Luescher-Mamashela, T. M. (2010). From university democratisation to managerialism: The changing legitimation of university governance and the place of students. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(4), 259-283. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13583883.2010.529161
Luescher-Mamashela, T. M. (2013). Student representation in university decision making: good reasons, a new lens? Studies
inHigherEducation, 38(10), 1442-1456. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.625496 Matthews, K. E. (2016). Students as partners as the future of student engagement. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, i(1), 1-5.
Matthews, K. E., & Dollinger, M. (2023). Student voice in higher education: the importance of distinguishing student representation and student partnership. HigherEducation, 85(3), 555-570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00851-7 Mendes, A. B., & Hammett, D. (2023). The new tyranny of student participation? Student voice and the paradox of strategic-active student-citizens. TeachinginHigherEducation, 28(1), 164-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1783227 Mercer-Mapstone, L., Dvorakova, S. L., Matthews, K. E., Abbot, S., Cheng, B., Felten, P., Knorr, K., Marquis, E., Shammas, R., & Swaim, K. (2017). A Systematic Literature Review of Students as Partners in Higher Education. international Journal forStudentsasPartners, i(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3119
Miles, J. M., Miller, M. T., & Nadler, D. P. (2008). Student Governance: Toward Effectiveness and the Ideal. College Student Journal, 42.
Miller, M. T., Nadler, D. P., & Miles, J. M. (2012). Are you voting today? Student participation in self-government elections. December. Moyo, C. S., & Boti, Z. (2020). Perceptions of students on factors that constrain their involvement in quality assurance and promotion in two comprehensive universities in South Africa. South African Journal of Higher Education, 35(4), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.20853/34-5-4239 Mugume, T., & Luescher, T. M. (2015). The politics of student housing: Student activism and representation in the determination of the user-price of a public-private partnership residence on a public university campus in South Africa. Journal ofStudentAffairsinAfrica, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14426/jsaa.v3i1.89
Nowell, L., Keogh, B., Laios, E., Mckendrick-Calder, L., Lucas Molitor, W., & Wilbur, K. (2024). Public participation in healthcare students' education: An umbrella review. Health Expectations, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13974
Palma, A., Mourato, J., Vinagre, J., Almeida, F., & Pessoa, A. M. (2023). Student Participation: Issues for the Governance of
Higher Education. Societies, 13(5), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13050115 Planas, A., Soler, P., Fullana, J., Pallisera, M., & Vilà, M. (2013). Student participation in university governance: The opinions of professors and students. Studies in Higher Education, 38(4), 571-583. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.586996 Ramsden, P. (2008). The future of higher education teaching and the student experience part 1: Responding to evolving stu-
dent expectations. Swedish National AgencyforHigherEducation, 1-21. Seale, J. (2010). Doing student voice work in higher education: An exploration of the value of participatory methods. British
Educational Research Journal, 36(6), 995-1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920903342038 Taylor, C., & Robinson, C. (2009). Student voice: Theorising power and participation. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 17(2),
161-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681360902934392 Tight, M. (2013). Students: Customers, clients or pawns? Higher Education Policy, 26(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.2 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodologyfor Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Trogden, B. G., Kennedy, C., & Biyani, N. K. (2023). Mapping and Making Meaning from Undergraduate Student Engagement in High-Impact Educational Practices. Innovative Higher Education, 48(1), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09608-7
White, M. (2018). Student partnership, trust and authority in universities. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1153451
Appendix
Table A1. 41 articles identified for the Literature Review
Number Title of Project Country Category
1. (Seale, 2010) UK DM/SV
2. (Taylor & Robinson, 2009) UK DM/SV
3. (Freeman, 2016) UK DM/SV
4. (Flint & O'Hara, 2013) UK DM/SV
5. (Islam, Burnett & Collins, 2021) UK DM/SV
6. (Fletcher, 2017) UK DM/SV
7. (Carey, 2018) UK DM/SV
8. (Mendes & Hammett 2023) UK DM/SV
9. (Griffiths, Dickinson & Day 2021) UK P. in ECA
10. (Dickinson, Griffiths & Bredice, 2021) UK P. in ECA
11. (King, McQuarrie & Brigham, 2021) UK P. in ECA
12. (Gourlay, 2015) UK Stud. Eng.
13. (White, 2018) UK Stud. Eng.
14. (Ashwin & Mcvitty 2015) UK Stud. Eng.
15. (Gul, 2010) Tukye DM/SV
16. (Kuruuzum, Asilkan & Cizel 2005) Tukye DM/SV
17. (Dundar, 2013) Tukye DM/SV
18. (Miles, Miller & Nadler 2008) USA DM/SV
19. (Miller, Nadler & Miles 2012) USA DM/SV
20. (Trogden, Kennedy & Biyani 2023) USA Stud. Eng.
21. (Mercer-Mapstone et al. 2017) USA Stud. Eng.
22. (Cook-Sather, 2010) USA Stud. Eng.
23. (Blair & Valdez, 2014) Trinidad and Tobago DM/SV
24. (Kennedy & Pek, 2023) Canada DM/SV
25. (de Bie, 2022) Canada DM/SV
26. (Nowell et al. 2024) Canada P. in ECA
27. (Liang & Matthews, 2021) China Stud. Eng.
28. (Moyo & Boti, 2020) South Africa DM/SV
29. (Mugume & Luescher, 2015) South Africa DM/SV
30. (Luescher-Mamashela, 2010) South Africa DM/SV
31. (Luescher-Mamashela, 2013) South Africa DM/SV
32. (Klemencic, 2012a) Slovenia DM/SV
33. (Klemencic, 2012b) Slovenia DM/SV
34. (Planas et al. 2013) Spain DM/SV
35. (Matthews & Dollinger, 2023) Australia DM/SV
36. (Naylor et al., 2020) Australia DM/SV
37. (Enright et al., 2017) Australia Stud. Eng.
38. (Matthews, 2016) Australia Stud. Eng.
39. (Holen et al. 2021) Norway Stud. Eng.
40. (Palma et al. 2023) Portugal DM/SV
41. (Jungblut & Weber, 2012) Germany DM/SV
Figure A1. Chart showing the topic areas under student participation differentiated by Country
