How should universities respond to the age of polycrisis?

In recent years we have witnessed numerous crises affecting learning and teaching in higher education institutions to varying degrees. Various indexes on future skills, jobs and risks indicate that these crises will not disappear any time soon.

Discussions about large-scale crises, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, have given rise to ongoing conversations regarding the future of higher education. These discussions, once confined to inner policy circles, have now become more widespread.

Universities worldwide are grappling with different types of crises stemming from financial constraints and budget cuts, wars and armed conflicts, natural calamities, political pressures, legal impediments, unequal access to technological abilities, cybersecurity risks, unsafe campus environments, refugees and displaced populations, climate change and interconnected multiple crises or ‘polycrises’.

(It must also be noted that public discussion of these crises is often shaped by the proximity or scale of the situation, for example, how close a conflict is to the centre of the groups leading these conversations.)

All of these crises lead to tangible difficulties and challenges for the continuity of educational activities. Some higher education institutions may find solutions individually, but for most, the remedies extend beyond the capability and capacity of a single institution. It is no coincidence that recurring themes in many recent higher education events and reports are interconnectedness, collaboration, cooperation, alliances and consortia.

Responding to crises

Understanding crises affecting learning and teaching and reflecting on how to cope with them are more complicated than it might seem. Responses to these challenges can be provided at different levels – global, regional, national, institutional and individual.

The responses may vary, from higher education institutions, non-governmental organisations, international organisations, civil society, governments and learning communities. As noted above, these groups can act either collectively or individually in responding to crises.

There is also the issue of how long crises last and how they emerge. They can be sudden, short-term, long-term, slow-burning or they can have a long tail. Crises can be foreseeable or unforeseeable. Some crises might be identified by chance. For instance, there can be ‘a crack in the pillar’ which then results in the evacuation of an entire building, causing an interruption in learning and teaching activities.

Sometimes, crises can unfold in a cascading fashion. For instance, while transitioning to a post-crisis phase from a global pandemic, another crisis, such as a natural disaster like an earthquake, can hit a country or institution, or buildings may be destroyed because of war, classmates and professors may be lost or violence on campus may occur right after the pandemic, leaving people in despair.

In such situations, resilience or adaptability may lose their meaning, leading to health and well-being becoming more important than ever, with staff and students feeling lonely and exhausted once again. Or a university may find itself ‘deported’ from the country it operates in, forcing you to relocate the entire operation to a new country, disrupting the established routines and lives of students and staff.

Therefore, while the learning from a previous crisis might make adapting operational tasks easier, the human factor requires more delicate processes, especially when staff and students are mentally exhausted. These kinds of crises usually disrupt campus operations suddenly, but their effects can span a longer period.

While international students are in demand for the tuition fees they provide, which support universities financially and improve their rankings, their presence on campus might lead to national security risks through their access to the university’s systems, which are also connected to general state networks.

Additionally, some students may enrol but never attend classes after obtaining a visa, or they may seek ways to remain in the host country after graduation. This can lead countries or regions to adopt more inward-looking policies, resulting in setbacks for efforts towards the internationalisation of education.

The turbulent times the world has been experiencing have led countries to invest heavily in the defence sector due to heightened security concerns. Consequently, this has resulted in direct budget cuts to education, particularly higher education, leading to staff layoffs.

Financial crises are also affecting universities and society at large, causing job losses and the downsizing of academic programmes. In turn, these developments have significant ramifications for the quality of education and the continuity of learning and teaching.

Distrust in higher education

The above points were discussed with a group of peers from seven different universities over a 10-month period as part of the European University Association’s Learning and Teaching Thematic Peer Group activities on “Learning and Teaching in Crisis Situations: Needs and Support Provision”. These discussions have been compiled into a report that will be published soon.

In our conversations, we covered more topics than we could include in the report. In my opinion, beyond these challenges, the most important one is the crisis that prevails in global society which hampers higher education: the increasing distrust in higher education and the depreciation of intellectual and academic work. This could be called a ‘slow-burning crisis’ with a ‘long tail’.

It began with the so-called ‘managerial turn’ in higher education. The ongoing conversation on this goes beyond the scope of this article, but it’s worth noting that market-driven visions and strategies risk transforming higher education institutions into merely vocational schools.

Coupled with the backlash against equity, diversity, inclusion and justice initiatives, the world is becoming increasingly economically and politically conservative under the guise of globalisation’s ideological face: neoliberalism.

Universities, once traditionally facilitators of social cohesion and the critical conscience of society, are becoming increasingly unattainable at a time of isolationist politics and ruling elites’ imperviousness to critique.

The erosion of cohesion and growing polarisation that we see across societies are closely linked to higher education, posing a broader risk to the sector as a whole, but particularly to the value and significance of theoretical thinking, which is increasingly being undermined and devalued.

Universities are places where students from all walks of life come together, step out of their cocoons, befriend others who are not like them, listen to them, tolerate them and change their ideas about things they once believed were absolute.

It is where they nourish themselves as individuals within the possibility of co-existence provided by campus life. When students remain in their echo chambers, where they do not hear other voices, other ways of being and other cultures, xenophobia and hatred against those who are different increase, along with anxiety about the future.

The digital divide

The risk of a growing digital divide is yet another issue that needs to be addressed. As a result of the unprecedented speed of technological development, that gap does not only occur between different countries or regions but also within the same country, where some groups have easier access to digital capabilities. This means they have better learning opportunities, while others cannot even afford daily subsistence costs.

This unequal distribution of resources creates widespread disadvantage for those with limited or no access to recent technology. Concomitantly, although it is highlighted that the arts, humanities and social sciences should be given the same importance as STEM-related disciplines, in reality students show less and less interest in these disciplines as the ‘job market’ favours more technology-related skills and competencies.

Corporations initially entered the higher education arena with MOOCs (massive open online courses) as supplementary educational materials, which proved extremely beneficial for the continuity of learning and teaching during the pandemic and beyond.

However, as evidence of the saying that you should ‘never waste a good crisis’, their market growth has led these companies to demand that they become part of the core curricula of universities.

This carries the risk that the uniqueness of institutions will be eroded through the promotion of highly standardised courses with limited interaction and little understanding of specific cultural and historical experiences of a particular place.

While flexible learning options, online learning, micro-credentials and recognition of prior learning have become the focus of discussion – developments universities should embrace but regulate and adapt for their own needs – updating curricula to keep up with the latest changes in technology and the digital world poses another challenge for universities and their academic staff.

The use of AI in learning and teaching, research and administrative work creates both great opportunities and potential crises in terms of its ethical and responsible use. This leads to a major issue for assessment and evaluation, which affects different disciplines to varying degrees. Traditional assessment and evaluation methods have become obsolete, but in some disciplines, better methods are still to be found.

Some students have been using AI to such a degree that it seems to be their only source of information. Whereas the use of the internet has caused learning to be stuck between information and knowledge in recent decades, there is now a danger of it being narrowly limited to just data and information.

Senior leaders of universities and their leadership teams play a crucial role not only in managing crises but also in taking the necessary precautions in advance.

These leaders face significant pressure during crises and must be supported both administratively and emotionally to manage these challenges effectively.

However, senior leaders of higher education institutions worldwide must also participate in ongoing ‘future of higher education’ conversations, envision their institution’s role in the new era and plan how transformation will unfold within their unique contexts.

What can universities do?

What can be done to navigate crises and maintain continuity of learning and teaching? Broader conversations, such as those related to ‘distrust in higher education’, require more reflective thinking, inclusive planning and a range of actions on not just seemingly but genuinely equitable platforms. But for more imminent and tangible crises, several steps can be taken to mitigate the severity of the challenges that emerge during and post-crisis.

Maintaining learning and teaching during crises is essential for students, staff and society. Institutions must support both students and staff with a robust online infrastructure, mental health services and regular review of workloads to prevent burnout.

An effective crisis response requires flexible plans, coordinated efforts and strong leadership. Institutions should allocate resources, prepare for surges in student numbers and build financial reserves to ensure continuity.

By reflecting on past crises, institutions can strengthen their resilience, adapt their strategies and turn challenges into opportunities for growth. Clear communication and collaboration within institutions and with external partners are critical.

Learning and teaching centres play a key role in maintaining education and supporting well-being. Institutions should establish a dedicated team to plan for crises, prioritise actions, allocate budgets and ensure regular system checks. Prioritising mental health and involving learning centres ensures effective crisis management and long-term preparedness.

Dr Berrin Yanikkaya is the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences at Yeditepe University in Istanbul, Türkiye. She also serves as the founding director of YU-LEARNT, the University Learning and Teaching Implementation and Research Centre, and as the founding chair of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (YEDI) Committee at the university. Her academic interests encompass women’s studies, cultural studies and media studies. Yanikkaya has actively participated in international higher education initiatives, including serving on the Strategic Council of the Global University Network for Innovation (GUNi) and as vice-president for 2025. She has chaired one of the European University Association (EUA) Learning and Teaching Thematic Peer Groups in 2024 and has delivered speeches at global conferences such as those organised by Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) and the International Association of Universities (IAU). Additionally, she has served as a judge for the QS Education Awards in 2023 and 2024 and works as an external reviewer for the Turkish Higher Education Quality Agency’s national institutional accreditation programme. She spoke on this subject at the recent European University Association’s 2025 European Learning and Teaching Forum in Ireland.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.