Policies for Developing Advanced STEM Skills in Higher Education

Annex A. Mutual Learning Group on Advanced STEM Skills in Higher Education

Purpose and contribution to the report

The Mutual Learning Group (MLG) on Advanced STEM Skills in Higher Education was organised by the OECD Secretariat as part of the project “Supporting effective implementation of the STEM Education Strategic Plan: the promotion of STEM in higher education”, undertaken with financial support from the European Union’s Erasmus+ programme. It brought together policymakers, researchers, higher education practitioners and other experts to discuss the development, effective use and renewal of advanced STEM skills.

The group provided a forum for countries and jurisdictions to identify, share and examine policies and practices through structured exchange and evidence-informed dialogue. Its scope included system-level strategies and co-ordination mechanisms, curriculum and programme reforms, funding and regulatory incentives, entry and progression in STEM higher education, transitions into employment, and routes for skills renewal across working life.

The Mutual Learning Group also provided a lens through which the literature, comparative data and policy analysis used in this report could be read and interpreted for their policy relevance, implementation requirements and applicability across contexts. Quantitative evidence helped identify patterns and differences across countries, fields and population groups, while the research literature provided evidence on the mechanisms that might produce them. Discussion in the group helped relate this evidence to the operation of education systems, higher education institutions, employers and public authorities in different contexts.

Bringing these sources together contributed to the structure of the report’s analytical framework. The discussions helped identify commonalities across countries while distinguishing context-specific causes, test the relationships among bottlenecks, policy priorities and areas for policy action.

Composition of the group

The group brought together policymakers, researchers, higher education practitioners and other experts with experience from Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Trinidad and Tobago. It also included participants from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, UNESCO and other relevant organisations.

Members were selected to bring together complementary knowledge of the issues covered by the project. Their experience included:

• national and regional policy and system co-ordination

• higher education and research policy

• programme and institutional development

• teaching, learning and learner support

• STEM participation and inclusion

• progression to advanced study and research

• emerging scientific and technological fields

• transitions between education and employment

• skills renewal across working life

The participating countries and organisations provided experience from different education systems, policy arrangements, institutional structures and economic contexts. This enabled the group to discuss both system-level frameworks and the conditions under which policies and practices operate within higher education institutions and other organisations.

The group was constituted to support comparative policy learning. Several participants were associated with the same country where they contributed different forms of policy, research, institutional or practical knowledge.

Members participated in their individual capacity. They contributed their personal expertise and experience and did not formally represent the views or positions of the organisations with which they were professionally affiliated.

List of members of the Mutual Learning Group (sorted in alphabetical order by last name)

Guia Bianchi (European Commission Joint Research Centre); Joscha Dapper (Ministry of Science, Research and Culture of Brandenburg, Germany); Eva Diaz (STEM Women Spain, Spain); Kaori Furuya (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan); Bárbara Gabriel (University of Aveiro, Portugal); Franziska Greinert (Quantum Valley Lower Saxony, Germany); Karel Hageman (European Commission Joint Research Centre); Tomi Halonen (Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for Higher Education and Science Policy, Finland); Jan Hesselbarth (German Council of University Faculties in Engineering and Informatics, Germany); Michael Hoch (KIT - Karlsruhe Institute for Technology/ Germany - European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN); Val Ianniti (Actua, Canada); Roman Jurowetzki (National Centre for Artificial Intelligence in Society, Denmark); Jan Lundell (LUMA Centre Finland, Finland); Maria Manatos (Agency for Assessment and Accreditation of Higher Education, Portugal); Loredana Maravić (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, Croatia); Nikki Meller (Women in AI Australia, Australia); Jeehye Min (Science and Technology Policy Institute, Korea); Tatrik Merlin (Education and Youth Board, Estonia); Ruaidhri Neavyn (Higher Education Authority, Ireland); Maarit Palonen (Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for Higher Education and Science Policy, Finland); Kristi Raudmäe (Ministry of Education and Research, Estonia); Ivana Radonova (Ministry of Education and Science, Bulgaria); Tracey Ross (Actua, Canada); Elisabeth Roth (Federal Ministry for Women, Science and Research, Austria); Manuel Sánchez-Masferrer (Global University Network for Innovation / United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation); Bianka Siwinska (Perspektywy Education Foundation and Perspektywy Women in Tech, Poland); Noah Sobe (Global University Network for Innovation / United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation); Andrzej Stolarczyk (Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland); Laura Taajamaa (Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for Higher Education and Science Policy, Finland); Marjo Vesalainen (Ministry of Education and Culture, Department for Higher Education and Science Policy, Finland); and Provincial and territorial governments under the aegis of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.

Meetings and working method

The Mutual Learning Group met online four times between April and July 2026, with preparation and follow‑up exchanges before and after the meetings. The first meeting introduced the project, discussed its scope and initial analytical framework, and identified significant policy challenges and relevant policy or institutional initiatives. The following three meetings examined selected policies and practices in greater depth.

Members discussed and agreed on a common analytical framework during the first meeting. The framework structured the preparation of presentations and supporting material and provided a common basis for discussion. It remained open to refinement as the work progressed, allowing findings from successive meetings to contribute to cumulative analysis.

 

Dimension	Criteria
1. Rationale for the policy/practice and context	Clear problem definition (skills gaps, shortages, mismatch, equity gaps, innovation needs) Scope and level (regional/national; discipline focus; level of study) Fit with broader policy mix (immigration, labour, R&D, industrial policy, procurement) Evidence on demand and use of advanced STEM skills Clear identification of target sectors, occupations and intended beneficiaries
2. Role of public policy	Clarity of public policy priorities for advanced STEM skills development Role of intermediary bodies Autonomy and flexibility granted to HEIs, including policy steering Stability of public policy commitments Co-ordination across key policy stakeholders (e.g. education, research, industry, finance)
3. Resources	Predictability and duration of funding Human resources, including capacity, training, incentives and technology-enabled teaching support Student financial support mechanisms Availability of specialised laboratories, equipment, computing capacity and software Networked resources and critical mass across institutions and partners
4. Governance, monitoring and evaluation	Clear roles and responsibilities Data systems tracking student progression, employment and research outputs Rules for scaling, redesigning or ending initiatives Sufficiently granular metrics and capacity to develop, analyse and use data Evaluation, quality assurance and adaptability supporting continuous improvement
5. Impact and scalability	Transferability across institutional types or regions Long-term sustainability and equity of impacts Evidence of graduate employment, progression and other outcomes Contribution to innovation, productivity and knowledge creation, adapting to technological and labour market change Scalability and capacity building across the education and lifelong-learning continuum

For meetings two to four, members prepared concise presentations and, where appropriate, supporting material on selected policies or institutional practices. Presentations addressed the initiative’s rationale and context, the role of public policy, required resources, governance, monitoring and evaluation, and available evidence on its effects and wider applicability.

Presentations were followed by plenary questions examining the initiative’s scope, the actors involved, implementation arrangements and the available evidence. Breakout discussions compared initiatives around two recurring questions: whether existing rules, incentives and capacity enabled higher education institutions and their partners to act; and which conditions and mechanisms enabled policies and institutional practices to improve, adapt and expand over time.

The discussions identified what supported implementation, what remained constrained or fragile, and which policy levers could address the limitations identified. This structure moved the exchange from descriptions of individual initiatives towards comparative policy learning while preserving differences among systems and settings.