We are living in an algorithmic age where mathematics and computer science are coming together in powerful new ways to influence, shape and guide our behaviour and the governance of our societies. As these algorithmic governance structures proliferate, it is vital that we ensure their effectiveness and legitimacy. That is, we need to ensure that they are an effective means for achieving a legitimate policy goal that are also procedurally fair, open and unbiased. But how can we ensure that algorithmic governance structures are both? This article shares the results of a collective intelligence workshop that addressed exactly this question. The workshop brought together a multidisciplinary group of scholars to consider (a) barriers to legitimate and effective algorithmic governance and (b) the research methods needed to address the nature and impact of specific barriers. An interactive management workshop technique was used to harness the collective intelligence of this multidisciplinary group. This method enabled participants to produce a framework and research agenda for those who are concerned about algorithmic governance. We outline this research agenda below, providing a detailed map of key research themes, questions and methods that our workshop felt ought to be pursued. This builds upon existing work on research agendas for critical algorithm studies in a unique way through the method of collective intelligence.

The pandemic affected more than 1.5 billion students and youth, and the most vulnerable learners were hit hardest, making digital inequality in educational settings impossible to overlook. Given this reality, we, all educators, came together to find ways to understand and address some of these inequalities. As a product of this collaboration, we propose a methodological toolkit: a theoretical kaleidoscope to examine and critique the constitutive elements and dimensions of digital inequalities. We argue that such a tool is helpful when a critical attitude to examine ‘the ideology of digitalism’, its concomitant inequalities, and the huge losses it entails for human flourishing seems urgent. In the paper, we describe different theoretical approaches that can be used for the kaleidoscope. We give relevant examples of each theory. We argue that the postdigital does not mean that the digital is over, rather that it has mutated into new power structures that are less evident but no less insidious as they continue to govern socio-technical infrastructures, geopolitics, and markets. In this sense, it is vital to find tools that allow us to shed light on such invisible and pervasive power structures and the consequences in the daily lives of so many.

This article explores policies and practices of global citizenship and internationalisation within higher education in Canada and Ireland, comparing two Canadian and two Irish universities. The cases suggest a number of entangled and contradictory strands of internationalisation, with implications for global citizenship. Underlying notions of globalisation, citizenship and ‘development’ are interrogated and issues surrounding the local/global distinction, privilege and marketisation are discussed. International relations paradigms and the ‘development connection’ are examined as broader determinants of understandings of global citizenship.

This article examines intersecting agendas and concerns in global citizenship education (GCE) and education for sustainable development (ESD) in the face of current global crises and pressures. While it cannot be assumed that the two educational projects automatically converge, generative and promising overlaps emerge from the shared interest in the SDG 4.7 education target. The article elaborates on a conversation emerging from the Bridge47 Knowledge Exchange Partnership focused on critical global citizenship education, and discusses the tensions, ambiguities, limitations and implications for critical, transgressive and potentially transformative GCE + ESD. While GCE and ESD can be ambivalent and constrained in formal educational settings, especially in comparison to informal projects where there are direct partnerships with people living on the margins of society, we argue that the potential generativity and transgressive possibilities of engaged and collaborative research have been under-emphasised. Participatory and praxis methodologies where education and research overlap offer significant transgressive and transformative potential. We point to important collaborative potentials in research practice that can help to bridge GCE-ESD gaps, given their substantial theoretical and practical experience in situated contexts, engagement with transgressive politics and creative and inclusive ethics of practice.

This article begins with the proposition that inter- and transdisciplinarity offer an important methodological grounding for collaborative HE research addressing complex agendas such as HE internationalization. Internationalization acts as a figure for the ‘troubled’ nature of higher education; hence we begin with the larger problem, discussing the current crises of disciplinary knowledge as the background question. We set out a framework for understanding and conceptualizing inter- and transdisciplinarity as a meta-theoretical approach that problematizes reductive and disciplinary approaches, in favour of research and analytical strategies which can work with, and across, differences. To work further through and operationalize different possibilities offered by inter-and transdisciplinary approaches to HE internationalizations, we discuss the use of tools such as social cartography to do ‘bridging work’ across different disciplinary and theoretical backgrounds and contexts. A non-formal practitioner–collaborator project is discussed to highlight emergent dimensions of collaboration that might otherwise be overlooked. Inter- and transdisciplinarity are not pre-specified specialized ‘methods’ but, rather, are orientations that may take reductive, convergent, divergent or emergent pathways. Inter- and transdisciplinarity can perhaps be best treated as a problematizing and open-ended methodological approach that foregrounds plurality and contestation, orienting research frameworks towards inclusiveness, tensions, unpredictability and complexity.