Platformized Private Higher Education Institutions in the EHEA: Instructional Infrastructure, Access Conditionality, and Platform Governance

Abstract

Purpose: This study conceptualizes highly digitized private higher education providers, including IU, Pegaso, Mercatorum, and EU-oriented providers, as an emerging type of platformized private higher education institution in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The central question is which structural, organizational, legal-regulatory, and socio-technical characteristics—recognition status, ownership, platform architecture, use of AI/analytics, program logic, and internationalization—constitute this type and how the recurring promise of democratization is institutionally translated into participation-critical conditions and selective effects. Design/Methodology/Approach: In the context of this, the study follows a theory-driven, triangulated research design consisting of (1) a systematic synthesis of literature and documents on platformization, datafication, and political economy in higher education; (2) document-based reconstruction of organizational/ownership and regulatory arrangements; and (3) artifact- and policy-oriented platform analysis (including contract/terms of service logic, data/analytics rationales, and interoperability/lock-in dimensions). Analytically, a multidimensional evaluation grid is used that integrates (i) corporate/regulatory governance, (ii) platform and AI architecture, (iii) program/market and internationalization logics, and (iv) access conditionality mechanisms as participation-critical test dimensions. Findings: First, the analysis indicates that platformized private higher education institutions should be understood less as digitized variants of traditional universities and more as organizationally integrated platform arrangements and student management systems that are structurally linked to data, workflow, and metrics infrastructures. Second, platformization appears as a shift in governance in which contract, IP, and data rights, as well as analytics-based decision-making architectures, can function as de facto control regimes that reconfigure academic autonomy, institutional transparency, and accountability. Third, the democratization narrative emerges as structurally ambivalent: opening up through flexibilization and low-threshold access can simultaneously be reorganized into access conditionality when participation is tied to device-, identity-, proctoring-, or support-bound infrastructures, fee/financing logics, and data-based retention regimes. Research limitations/implications: Consequently, the findings are primarily based on secondary documents, publicly available platform artifacts, and discourse/policy material; internal organizational data (e.g., proprietary analytics models, contract details, research) can only be reconstructed indirectly. Further research should complement comparative, case-based governance studies (e.g., contract and procurement analyses, organizational ethnographic reconstructions of platform work and tutorial regimes) as well as quantitative studies on social selectivity and debt/pay-to-learn pathways in the EHEA. Practical implications: For strategic and operational higher education management and regulation, the analysis implies that quality assurance for platformized private higher education institutions must not stop at output metrics or formal accreditation compliance but must operationalize platform governance as an object of review: transparency regarding data/analytics purposes, interoperability and exit capability (lock-in risks), IP and contract clarity, and verifiable mechanisms to avoid access conditionality (multi-channel support and fallback architectures, traceable fairness, and participation checks). Originality/value: Essentially, this contribution closes a gap in research by reconstructing platformization not only as a process of digitization in higher education institutions but also as the formation of a private-sector platformized higher education institution in the European Higher Education Area. In this respect, the added value lies in an operationalizable evaluation grid for analyzing platform governance, AI/analytics architectures, and selectivity mechanisms, which systematically intertwines critical platform economy approaches with higher education research and EHEA policy contextualization. In doing so, the article treats platformization not merely as a question of institutional form but as a question of instructional infrastructure, platform governance, and participation-critical design.