EngageComp

The approach is formally structured with considerable clarity: the theoretical background, research process, literature review, framework analysis, and empirical validation provide a transparent and coherent basis for deriving the final competence framework. The reference to NextSkills demonstrates theoretical and methodological compatibility by systematically linking the competences identified in EngageComp to an established structural model of Future Skills (p. 17). The ESCO mapping indicates compatibility with labour market requirements and European policy frameworks by aligning the competences with a European classification of skills and occupations (p. 42). The reflection guidelines point to practical applicability (pp. 43–44).
However, the underlying understanding of democracy, society, or politics is not developed with sufficient precision. A critical issue is that key terms such as “democratic life” (p. 7), “active citizenship” (p. 6), and “social transformation” (p. 34) are normatively highly charged, without the underlying conception and understanding of society in general, and democracy in particular, being adequately clarified. The framework does not specify in sufficient detail what is considered socially desirable, who defines this, or which conflicts may be associated with such normative determinations (pp. 35–36).

A positive feature is that the competence framework comprises 21 competence profiles, reference competences, and corresponding descriptions (pp. 35 ff.). The use of profiles and associated reference competences addresses the dilemma that the competences are not entirely distinct from one another but instead represent “interconnected dimensions” (p. 35). It is also positive that the competence framework is explicitly intended to support design processes (p. 20) and reflection (p. 43).
Its applicability was examined convincingly by investigating the relevance of the competences for typical activities, roles, and practices (p. 28). The descriptions of the reference competences are, for the most part, specified through observable elements. At the same time, it remains open to critical scrutiny whether very broad constructs such as “Management Competence” (p. 38) or “Sensemaking” (p. 38) have in fact been operationalised in an observable manner, or whether terms such as “structures of meaning” (p. 38) function more as umbrella concepts.
There is a risk that terms such as “willingness” (pp. 37–41), “awareness” (pp. 38, 39, 40), or “openness for the new” (p. 39) are not linked clearly enough to observable behaviour, as they refer primarily to intrapersonal processes.

The report refers to democratic societies (p. 6), social cohesion (p. 11), Professional Higher Education (p. 6), institutional initiatives, local community projects (p. 11), media (p. 19), and societal challenges (p. 8). In this way, the societal context is given particular prominence. In the final competence framework, the societal, practical, and individual contexts likewise appear as three distinct domains (p. 35).
However, the specifically societal context remains underdeveloped, as the relevant societal objectives are largely presupposed rather than systematically clarified. In the final competence framework, Civic and Democratic Competence is explicitly described as “not assigned to the individual, practice, or societal context,” but rather as an overarching “goal state” (p. 35). Consequently, the central political or democratic competence is not situated within the societal domain itself, but instead remains suspended above the model.
Large parts of the framework comprise competences such as communication, cooperation, management, and leadership, all of which could equally be found in private-sector companies, public administration, or governmental organisations. Specifically civil-society-related conditions are developed to an insufficient extent. These include responsibility towards anonymous fellow citizens, social movements, sensitivity to practices within large-scale social systems, historical developments, institutional rules, and the boundaries of legitimate participation.
Technology appears only indirectly, for example through digital participation (p. 19), digital competences, media literacy (p. 25), and social media (pp. 29–30). Technology is therefore positioned primarily as a resource for application and problem-solving.

The text explicitly refers to responsibility (p. 18), provides a rationale for ethical action (p. 34), and addresses democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, and equality (p. 9). “Civic and Democratic Competence” is defined as the ability and willingness to engage actively, responsibly, and ethically in democratic and civil society life (p. 37). The underlying competence logic also integrates values alongside knowledge and skills (p. 13).
However, it remains unclear which forms of critical engagement and value reflection are specifically important for civic engagement. Values are mentioned in largely affirmative terms rather than explored critically. Justice, freedom, equality, solidarity, and democracy appear as positive normative objectives, yet the tensions between them receive little attention. A more substantial engagement with moral development, emancipation, social maturity, and the question of how students can learn to assess normative conflicts in a reasoned manner is lacking

The report describes civic engagement as a contribution to democratic societies and as conscious participation in public life (pp. 19–20), promoting social cohesion, active citizenship, and social transformation. It assumes that the societal context fosters responsibility, collective action, and contributions to democratic and social progress (pp. 35–36).
Nevertheless, the account of action remains largely individualistic, as competences are modelled primarily as capacities of individual persons. Only occasionally does the framework open up a collective perspective, for example in the reference to “collective well-being to the common good” (p. 37). It remains unclear whether collective or communal competences are understood as more than the sum of individual competences.
Civic engagement, in particular, would need to be conceptualised more explicitly as a collective practice and as the individual’s embeddedness in communities, institutions, social movements, and forms of public responsibility. The framework does not sufficiently explain how individual actions are translated into collective actors such as social movements, communities, or institutions, which may themselves function as collective bearers of competence.

The future appears primarily as a horizon of action, competence development, and transformation: students are expected to deal with uncertainty, change, and open future possibilities and, through civic engagement, to contribute to desirable societal developments (pp. 35–36). The text connects the competence framework to Future Skills, emergent contexts of action (p. 7), societal transformation (p. 9), sustainable personal and professional development, desirable futures (p. 8), and, at the same time, open and alternative futures (p. 39).
A positive aspect is that the approach identifies digitalisation, sustainability, globalisation, and uncertainty as key challenges. Although the future is presented as open and shapeable, it remains unclear according to which criteria a future is considered “desirable” and who is entitled to make such determinations.
A critical issue is that the future is framed almost exclusively in terms of change, transformation, improvement, and problem-solving. There is little reflection on the fact that futures should be understood as spaces of possibility that are shaped by decisions made in the present. Both these decisions and processes of change themselves may be ambivalent and must therefore be critically assessed in terms of their societal consequences.
Civic engagement is not always future-optimising or problem-solving. It may also be preservative, resistant, conflictual, or concerned with the politics of memory.

The text draws on Kolb’s concept of experiential learning, Mezirow’s theory of transformative learning, and Lave and Wenger’s situated learning approach (p. 7). These theoretical references are generally well suited to the subject matter, as civic engagement is understood as learning embedded in real social practices (p. 7). The connection to Future Skills is likewise a positive feature.
The use of Bourdieu, however, is not entirely convincing. The text presents social, cultural, and symbolic forms of capital in ways that at times suggest a direct correspondence with competence (p. 7). Symbolic capital, in particular, is better understood as recognition or as the socially attributed effect of individual and collective competences. A clearer distinction would therefore be required between educational processes, competence, social resources, and societal impact.

Competences are understood as action-oriented competences or self-organised dispositions that integrate knowledge, skills, and values into responsible action (p. 7). Nevertheless, a critical limitation is that the socio-political specificity of this understanding of competence is not developed in sufficient detail. Political competence, historical competence, legal competence, socio-spatial understanding, and judgement in collective processes are not explicitly integrated.
Although the central “Civic and Democratic Competence” is constructed as an overarching competence, it is not elaborated as a differentiated field of political competence. It encompasses the willingness and ability to engage actively, responsibly, and ethically in democratic and civic life, to value democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, and equality, and to contribute to democratic processes and societal transformation (pp. 8–9). At the same time, competences related to political analysis, judgement, conflict, institutions, and law are not developed as distinct core components of the competence framework.
The societal context is understood primarily as a sphere of cooperation and responsibility (pp. 36–37), rather than as a space of political analysis and conflict. A model such as Peter Massing’s concept of political competence, with its references to political judgement, action, knowledge, law, history, and social space, could have given the civic dimension a more distinctive profile.

The methodology is multi-stage, multi-perspectival, and overall clearly comprehensible: a systematic literature review following PRISMA, an analysis of international frameworks, open coding, competence clustering using NextSkills, expert interviews, student focus groups, Student Advisory Groups, and validation with stakeholders (pp. 14 ff.). The inclusion of students is particularly positive, as otherwise there would be a risk of conceptualising student engagement without adequately involving the target group itself.
However, it remains unclear how representative the perspectives included are. It would be important to know whether marginalised groups or students facing particularly high levels of strain were sufficiently taken into account. The only point of criticism concerns the formal accuracy of the references: some inconsistencies in the bibliographic information were identified, for example in the reference to Schudson (p. 19). The correct title should be The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life.

The report addresses higher education institutions, policymakers, political education, volunteer organisations, and teaching staff (p. 6). It also refers to toolkits, guidelines, reflection materials, pilot interventions, a Student Ambassador Programme, and specialised courses (p. 9). The intended direction of application is therefore clearly identifiable.
However, it remains unclear how responsibility is distributed among students, teaching staff, institutional leadership, civil society organisations, and policymakers. It is also insufficiently explained why the framework is specifically tailored to Professional Higher Education. The text refers to PHE (p. 6), diverse student populations, and the challenge of combining study and civic engagement (p. 11), but does not adequately justify why these factors require a distinct competence model for professional higher education.
Although the report identifies a gap, namely that competences developed through student civic engagement remain particularly underdeveloped in PHE (p. 6), it does not sufficiently clarify why this gap is significant or how its relevance is theoretically and empirically substantiated.

Strategically, EngageComp serves to recognise, promote, and make visible the competences developed through student civic engagement (pp. 6–7). The alignment with ESCO enhances their visibility, transferability, and recognition (p. 42). A positive feature is that the links to NextSkills and ESCO strengthen the framework’s international compatibility and credibility.
The approach is explicitly conceived as an instrument for higher education development, including institutional design, programme development, quality assurance, and strategic decision-making (pp. 6–7). However, a critical concern is that the connection to ESCO also reinforces a labour-market-oriented and utilitarian logic (p. 42). When civic engagement is framed primarily in terms of competence acquisition, employability signals, or transferability, its emancipatory dimension receives insufficient attention.
The strategic orientation places too little emphasis on educational aims and social maturity. It lacks an explicitly emancipatory theoretical or educational foundation.