03.03.25: Please note: this is still a draft programme and changes may occur.
With the exception of plenary sessions, all conference sessions will run in parallel. Room allocations will be confirmed in the final programme.
You will find elaborated descriptions of each session below the programme. Click on the session number to go directly to the description.
Day 1: Wednesday 4 June 2025
| time | session | session |
|---|---|---|
| 09.00 | Registration [and poster installation] | |
| 10.00 | Welcome to Amsterdam (Theatre Room 5 – TZ5) | |
| 10.10 – 11.00 | Opening (TZ5) Welcome by: Jean Grier (President, ENOHE), Pelin Zenginoglu (Ombudsman, VU) & Marcel Nollen (Executive Board, VU) Keynote speaker: Munish Ramlal, Ombudsman Metropolis Amsterdam | |
| 11.00 | Coffee and networking | |
| 11.30 – 12.10 | Session 1: DUCAM: Sharing experiences among Ombuds at Universities in the Comunidad de Madrid (Spain) Sevillano, Sánchez & Vivas | Session 2: Equal opportunities and wellbeing analysis as a springboard for multidisciplinary cooperation Jahodová |
| 12.15 – 12.55 | Session 3: Higher Education, Administrative Fairness, and the Role of the Ombuds Brendon & Conway | Session 4: The Ombuds’ Contribution to Student Trust and Well-Being in Higher Education: Collaborative Practices at ISEG, University of Lisbon and IPBeja, Polytechnic Institute of Beja Ferreira & Raposo |
| 12.15 – 12.55 | Lunch, poster walk and networking | |
| 13.45 – 14.25 | Plenary (TZ5) Knowing ENOHE: developments and opportunities, meet the committees, get published with ENOHE – and complete our survey! Jean Grier, Ursula Meiser and members of the Board | |
| 14.30 – 15.10 | Session 5: Personal Responsibility – “How Not to Regret Your Actions” Galiová & Tesařová | Session 6: The More the Merrier: Promoting the Growth of Embedded and Outsourced Ombuds Everywhere Doran & Epperson |
| 15.15 – 15.55 | Session 7: The role of the ombuds in the duty of care Vos & Zenginoglu | Session 8: Team ombudsing – sharing agendas, experiences, and challenges Malaníková, Šotola, Lovrits & Epperson |
| 16.00 – 16.40 | Session 9: The role of the Ombudsperson in promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) at the University. The experience from University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn Dampc | Session 10: Equity in the Ombuds World: A Path to Fairness Boncompain & Roy |
| 18.30 | Social event – details TBD |
Day 2: Thursday 5 June 2025
| time | session | session |
|---|---|---|
| 09.00 | Poster walk | |
| 09.30 – 10.10 | Plenary (TZ5) Launching ENOHE’s accredited certificate programme Elke Welp-Park, University of Krems | |
| 10.15 – 10.55 | Plenary (TZ5) ENOHE developments – survey results and discussion Jean Grier, Ursula Meiser and members of the Board | |
| 10.55 – 11.20 | Coffee and networking | |
| 11.20 – 12.55 | ENOHE elections and General Assembly (TZ5) | |
| 12.55 – 13.45 | Lunch and networking | |
| 13.45 – 14.25 | Session 11: Evaluating the Work and Impact of Ombuds: How Should We Do It and Should We Do It at All? Seethaler & Rothwangl | Session 12: Building Bridges with SAFE Steps™: Advancing Equity and Responsibility in Ombuds Work Graham |
| 14.30 – 15.10 | Session 13: Breaking Barriers: resolving complaints from disabled students Nuckley & Megarry | Session 14: TBC |
| 15.15 – 15.55 | Session 15: Fear and Controversy over EDI: Bridge or Barrier? Sharpe | Session 16: Applying Moral Case Deliberation to moral challenges in complex cases Seiboth & Stolper |
| 16.00 – 16.40 | Session 17: Building Bridges: The Role of Ombuds for students in Mediation for Conflict Resolution in Higher Education Varberg & Loy | Session 18: Stand in someone’s shoes Tesařová & Galiová |
| 19.00 | Gala Dinner (partners welcome at additional cost – must be pre-booked) |
Day 3: Friday 6 June 2025
| time | session | session |
|---|---|---|
| 09.00 | Poster walk | |
| 09.30-10.20 | Plenary (TZ5) (details TBC) | |
| 10.20-10.50 | Coffee and networking | |
| 10.50-11.30 | Session 19: Merging perspectives: The Student Ombud as a Bridge Builder during times of change Parella | Session 20: The Right to a Life Free of Violence in Universities: Experiences, Practices, and Challenges to prevent or remedy its academic consequences from precautionary measures and the Restorative Justice Paradigm. Domínguez & Cepeda |
| 11.35-12.15 | Session 21: TBC | Session 22: Bridging the Gap: Synergy Between Ombuds and Equity Offices in Higher Education Rivas & Chan |
| 12.20-13.00 | Session 23: Ensuring, by force of law, the Portuguese Student Ombudsperson as symbol of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity Vasconcelos & Baptista | Session 24: The EASE Model: Effective Conflict Management Coaching in Ombuds Practice Armstrong & Epperson |
| 13.00-13.50 | Lunch and networking | |
| 13.50-14.30 | Session 25: Building bridges: a common template for the analysis of situations presented at Ombuds´offices in Spanish and in Portuguese universities Sánchez, Sousa & Sevillano | Session 26: Ombuds as pontifex academicus Galkowski, Šimon & Hedl |
| 14.35-15.15 | Session 27: The Long Way Round: Hope in Ombuds Practice Stoddart-Morrison | Session 28: Naming and / or Shaming: How far to go (if) with public transparency? Sharpe, Seethaler & Laszlo |
| 15.15 | Short break | |
| 15.30-16.00 | Farewell (TZ5) | |
| 17.00 | Social event – details TBC |
Session descriptions:
| Session | 1 DUCAM: Sharing experiences among Ombuds at Universities in the Comunidad de Madrid (Spain) |
| Speaker(s) | Ángel Rodríguez Sevillano (Spain) María Elena Gómez Sánchez (Spain) Yolanda Fernández Vivas (Spain) |
| Abstract | This proposal presents DUCAM, the network of the Ombuds (Defensores Universitarios) belonging to Universities located in the Comunidad de Madrid. At DUCAM, we share knowledge and experiences (always keeping in mind the required confidentiality, etc.) related to our role in our institutions. Within this context, this talk offers a comparative study focusing on several key points (such as reasons for reaching out the Ombud´s Offices, or questions related to assessment, to name but two) and presents several ways in which we build bridges, not only inside our respective institutions, but also among us as a way to share best practices. |
| Session | 2 Equal opportunities and wellbeing analysis as a springboard for multidisciplinary cooperation |
| Speaker(s) | Dita Jahodová (The Czech Republic) |
| Abstract | The paper will focus on methods of analysing equal opportunities and wellbeing and multidisciplinary collaboration to promote equity and social safety in higher education. It will use a case study to show the potential of engaging different actors across the university in the process of preparing an equal opportunities analysis, and will address the question of how ombuds in practice can work with the results of the analysis at faculty, departmental and individual level. Furthermore, the paper will outline how, through multidisciplinary collaboration, equity and social safety can be developed and enhanced at the institutional level and level of individuals. |
| Session | 3 Higher Education, Administrative Fairness, and the Role of the Ombuds |
| Speaker(s) | Carolyn Brendon (Canada) Martine Conway (Canada) |
| Abstract | Numerous court cases have reiterated the legal requirement that universities provide procedural fairness to students facing decisions that may result in negative consequences. The presenters will examine the notion of fairness as a context-specific and dynamic framework whose complexity may contribute to compliance challenges. The presenters will also look at the unique characteristics of universities that may contribute to their resistance to applying the rule of law when making decisions that affect students. A discussion will take place regarding actions Ombuds can take, including how to effectively use their power to make systemic recommendations, to ensure students’ rights are protected. |
| Session | 4 “The Ombuds’ Contribution to Student Trust and Well-Being in Higher Education: Collaborative Practices at ISEG, University of Lisbon and IPBeja, Polytechnic Institute of Beja” |
| Speaker(s) | Filomena Ferreira (Portugal, Lisbon) Albertina Raposo (Portugal, Beja) |
| Abstract | The crucial role of the ombuds in promoting trust and student well-being in higher education, with a focus on two different institutions, one in Lisbon and other in the interior of Portugal. By collaborating closely with student associations and support services, the ombuds help create an inclusive and transparent environment where students’ voices are heard, and their needs are met. The principles of transparency, inclusion, equity, confidentiality, partnership, and sustainability guide these efforts, fostering a supportive academic community. This highlights how such collaborations strengthen student engagement, well-being, and academic success, while preparing students for future leadership and responsible citizenship. |
| Session | 5 Personal Responsibility – “How Not to Regret Your Actions” |
| Speaker(s) | Hana Galiová (Czech Republic) Lucie Tesařová (Czech Republic) |
| Abstract | Creating a safe and just environment requires each of us to accept our share of responsibility. While institutions, including universities, can set rules and policies, true justice and safety are ultimately shaped by individuals—every team member, student, and teacher. This workshop is designed to help participants better understand how to set clear and fair boundaries, stand behind those boundaries, and find common ground with others. It addresses common issues observed at a regional university in the Czech Republic, particularly focusing on personal boundaries in peer relationships among students. |
| Session | 6 The More the Merrier: Promoting the Growth of Embedded and Outsourced Ombuds Everywhere |
| Speaker(s) | Chuck Doran (United States) Brent Epperson (Canada / Luxembourg) |
| Abstract | Debate on the merits of embedded versus outsourced ombuds centres on independence, accessibility, and effectiveness. However, this dichotomy misses the larger point: the world needs more ombuds. Both models offer unique strengths—embedded ombuds arguably provide accessibility and familiarity with organisational cultures more easily, while outsourced ombuds more straightforwardly ensure impartiality, external expertise and outside perspective. The best fit depends on the specific needs of organisations, from internal dynamics to resources. Both embedded and outsourced ombuds can follow best practices. The presenters argue that promoting the growth of the ombuds profession is essential for fostering fairness, trust, and conflict resolution globally. |
| Session | 7 The role of the ombuds in the duty of care |
| Speaker(s) | Relinde Vos (Netherlands) Pelin Zenginoglu (Netherlands) |
| Abstract | Each higher education institution has a certain duty of care towards its students and staff. In most jurisdictions this duty of care is rather vague – an open norm – although the consequences of breaching it may be far-reaching and harmful to all involved. This session aims to discuss what the role of the ombuds is in safeguarding and stimulating this duty of care, both from the student’s point of view as well as from the point of view of the employees involved in education, who are the ones to put the duty of care into practice. |
| Session | 8 Team ombudsing – sharing agendas, experiences, and challenges |
| Speaker(s) | Michaela Antonín Malaníková (Czech Republic) Jaroslav Šotola (Czech Republic) Veronika Lovrits (Luxembourg) Brent Epperson (Canada / Luxembourg) |
| Abstract | This session explores team-based ombuds practices in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Teams reduce many of the challenges of ombuds who work alone. Using the University of Luxembourg and Palacký University Olomouc as examples, we examine the benefits and challenges of these models. Luxembourg’s team approach addresses linguistic diversity, high case numbers, and gender balance, while Palacký University mitigates conflicts of interest, as ombuds are also lecturers. The session will cover team dynamics, case management, and the influence of visitor preferences (e.g., professional specialisation and gender) on disclosure practices. |
| Session | 9 The role of the Ombudsperson in promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) at the University. The experience from University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn. |
| Speaker(s) | Mateusz Dampc (Poland) |
| Abstract | The Ombudsperson plays a key role in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in higher education. This paper examines the experience of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn in promoting DEI initiatives. The Ombudsperson’s role includes addressing systemic barriers and individual complaints while promoting a culture of respect and understanding. Key strategies include working with university leadership, DEI-focused training for the university community, and developing inclusive policies. The presentation highlights challenges, successes, and lessons learned, offering a model for using the Ombudsperson’s position to advance equity and inclusion in higher education. |
| Session | 10 Equity in the Ombuds World: A Path to Fairness |
| Speaker(s) | Julie Boncompain (Canada, Montreal) Caroline Roy (Canada, Montreal) |
| Abstract | This presentation explores the vital role of equity within the ombuds framework, focusing on procedural fairness, relational and substantive equity. We will examine how these principles interconnect to ensure equitable outcomes in diverse organizational in higher education, but use in other sectors. Through an interactive case study, participants will analyze challenges, identify fairness issues, and solutions to address the iniquities. Attendees will leave with a deeper understanding of how to integrate equity into their ombuds work and within their higher education institute or organization while advancing a culture of trust and accountability. |
| Session | 11 Evaluating the Work and Impact of Ombuds: How Should We Do It and Should We Do It at All? |
| Speaker(s) | Markus Seethaler (Austria) Anna-Katharina Rothwangl (Austria) |
| Abstract | Evaluating our work offers several benefits: (1) reflecting on achievements highlights our efficacy, (2) it supports the need for additional resources (3) it helps improve our work. However, uncertainties exist: (1) What tools and criteria should we use? (2) Whom should we consult for feedback? (3) What is the benchmark for impact? We adopted two methods to measure our impact: a survey of student satisfaction, and checking the implementation of our suggestions. In our talk, we will explain why we realized that evaluating the work of ombuds is important, although we must be mindful of what exactly we are measuring. |
| Session | 12 Building Bridges with SAFE Steps™: Advancing Equity and Responsibility in Ombuds Work |
| Speaker(s) | Dr. Diedrick (D. A.) Graham (USA) |
| Abstract | This interactive workshop explores how the SAFE Steps™ framework can bridge conflict resolution and foster equity in higher education. Participants will learn practical applications of the framework to enhance their ombudsman practices, particularly in addressing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) challenges and Gender-Based Violence (GBV) cases. This interactive workshop introduces the SAFE Steps™ framework, a powerful tool designed to help ombuds navigate complex issues related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Gender-Based Violence (GBV) in higher education. Participants will engage in scenario analyses, skill-building exercises, and collaborative discussions to develop practical strategies for fostering psychological safety, |
| Session | 13 Breaking Barriers: resolving complaints from disabled students |
| Speaker(s) | Joanne Nuckley (UK) Helen Megarry (UK) |
| Abstract | In 2024 40% of students complaining to the OIA identified themselves as disabled. A majority are affected by mental health issues including depression and anxiety. The OIA will present some common themes in complaints from disabled students in England and Wales, focusing on support for learning and support for academic assessments. We will explore why disabled students’ concerns are not being successfully resolved before reaching the ombudsman. Delegates attending this session will be invited to describe and compare their experiences within different national and institutional settings, and to share examples of good practice in resolving complaints from disabled students. |
| Session | 14 TBC |
| Speaker(s) | |
| Abstract |
| Session | 15 Fear and Controversy over EDI: Bridge or Barrier? |
| Speaker(s) | Natalie Sharpe (Canada) |
| Abstract | The language of EDI is bold and focused on moving beyond aspirations, creating actionable change, and removing rigid, elitist, patriarchal barriers in HE institutions. Its intent is to build stronger, healthier, sustainable and resilient connections/relationships, policies and practices so that HE is accessible to all. Despite the recent proliferation of high-profile EDI offices, we are witnessing retaliation and pressure from external (often political) and internal forces that argue EDI language is harmful and divisive. Hence, many HE institutions are closing or absorbing EDI offices into other areas, and rebranding them with new titles of purpose. Why the fear and controversy? |
| Session | 16 Applying Moral Case Deliberation to moral challenges in complex cases |
| Speaker(s) | Verena Seiboth (Austria) Margreet Stolper (Netherlands) |
| Abstract | When handling complex complaint cases, stakeholders such as Ombudspersons, EDI Officers, Deans, and Department Heads often encounter moral challenges with conflicting perspectives due to the different dimensions of conflicts. Guided case discussions like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) have been used in healthcare settings for decades to support professionals in addressing complex moral dilemmas and enhancing their professional expertise through guided reflection. This workshop session will introduce MCD as a structured and methodical approach to reflect on moral dilemmas in cases, particularly those involving research integrity aspects, contributing to better communication and decision-making practices among the involved stakeholders. |
| Session | 17 Building Bridges: The Role of Ombuds for students in Mediation for Conflict Resolution in Higher Education |
| Speaker(s) | Torill Varberg (Norway) Lene Kjemphol Loy (Norway) |
| Abstract | 1. Mediation in Higher Education: Discuss the effectiveness of mediation in resolving conflicts in h.e. 2. The Unique Role of the Ombud: How the independent and neutral position of the ombud makes us ideal mediators. 3. Opportunities, Benefits and Challenges associated with implementing mediation services to the ombuds role, 4. Required Skills and Qualification to effectively mediate conflicts. 5. Ethical and Practical Considerations: Dilemmas and practical issues that may arise during mediation, especially how to safeguard our values. 6. Best practice for integration: Discuss and provide recommendations on how institutions successfully can integrate mediation services into their existing conflict resolution. |
| Session | 18 Stand in someone’s shoes |
| Speaker(s) | Lucie Tesařová (Czech Republic) Hana Galiová (Czech Republic) |
| Abstract | The proverb ‘Stand in someone’s shoes’ expresses that those who have not experienced hardships cannot fully understand those who have. This workshop aims to bring to life the experiences of people who are different in some way and not part of the mainstream. It does so through the stories and reactions of specific individuals, as well as through social media and other sources. |
| Session | 19 Merging perspectives: The Student Ombud as a Bridge Builder during times of change. |
| Speaker(s) | Franco Parrella (Australia) |
| Abstract | The University of South Australia will merge with the University of Adelaide to establish a new ‘Adelaide University’ (AU) on 1st January 2026. Internationally, university mergers are a very rare phenomenon. All universities have their own approaches to managing student feedback, appeals and complaints. Not all universities have a Student Ombud. It is within this context that the challenges ahead for the Student Ombud are many and varied. Topics canvassed include how to build understanding of the importance and uniqueness of the role, how best to position it within a new institution, how to educate and influence new policy makers. |
| Session | 20 The Right to a Life Free of Violence in Universities: Experiences, Practices, and Challenges to prevent or remedy its academic consequences from precautionary measures and the Restorative Justice Paradigm. |
| Speaker(s) | Ayesha Borja Domínguez (Mexico) Galilea Cariño Cepeda (Mexico) |
| Abstract | The National Autonomous University of Mexico and the Iberoamericana Puebla University are part of the Network of Organizations Defending University Rights, a space in which the importance of addressing gender violence from the areas of prevention and care has been focused. For both institutions, the right to a life free of violence, with full respect for equality and non-discrimination, is essential. In this dialogue, we share two important aspects. First we will discuss the impact for those who experience situations of gender violence and the preventive and remedial measures that have been implemented to reduce harm to those invididuals. Secondly, we will share how the institutions are moving to investigation methods that are being informed by considering gender approaches, intersectionality and restorative approaches. |
| Session | 21 |
| Speaker(s) | TBC |
| Abstract |
| Session | 22 Bridging the Gap: Synergy Between Ombuds and Equity Offices in Higher Education |
| Speaker(s) | Jacky Rivas (Canada) Eric Chan (Canada) |
| Abstract | This session examines the alignment between Ombuds and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) professionals in higher education, both of whom champion fairness and address systemic inequities. Focusing on the Canadian context, we explore collaborative opportunities between Ombuds and Equity offices, offering principles and practices for establishing beneficial relationships. Recognizing that international colleagues may have different titles or structures, we aim to provide universally applicable insights. Attendees will gain a deeper understanding of collaborative principles to support systemic, sustainable changes in higher education, ultimately advancing fairness for all. |
| Session | 23 Ensuring, by force of law, the Portuguese Student Ombudsperson as symbol of tolerance, inclusion, and diversity |
| Speaker(s) | Rosa Maria Vasconcelos (Portugal) Berta Baptista (Portugal) |
| Abstract | The Student Ombuds of Higher Education in Portugal exist since 2009, due to the implementation of Law 62/2007 – RJIES. In the first revision that this law undergoes, the higher education community was called upon to participate. The Student Ombudsperson, through their network (RPE) set up a working committee and presented a reasoned proposal for amendment. The defense of the principles of impartiality, independence, transparency and responsibility in the exercise of Ombuds functions certainly contributed to the positive reception of the proposal. |
| Session | 24 The EASE Model: Effective Conflict Management Coaching in Ombuds Practice |
| Speaker(s) | Laura Armstrong (Canada) Brent Epperson (Luxembourg / Canada) |
| Abstract | The EASE protocol—Empathise, Acknowledge, Solve, and Evaluate—addresses the lack of research on effective conflict coaching practices in ombuds offices by introducing a measurable, evidence-based framework. Designed to enhance visitor outcomes such as service retention, goal achievement, and well-being, EASE draws on principles from psychotherapy, including goal alignment, task agreement, and the development of trust-based alliances. This study validates tools to monitor ombuds service efficacy and supports the professionalisation of the field. Participants will explore the EASE model through theory, data linking its elements to outcomes, and practical role-playing exercises, advancing training and future implementation in ombuds practice. |
| Session | 25 Building bridges: a common template for the analysis of situations presented at Ombuds´offices in Spanish and in Portuguese universities |
| Speaker(s) | María Elena Gómez Sánchez (Spain) Sara Sousa (Portugal) Ángel Rodríguez Sevillano (Spain) |
| Abstract | Higher Education Ombuds in Spain have been working recently on a common template to accommodate the several “categories” of situations they deal with in their universities. The purpose is to compare more accurately (always following rules of confidentiality, etc. inherent to the role) such situations and “categories”, to obtain a clearer roadmap of their actions contributing to equity and responsibility within their respective institutions. Within this context, this talk offers a comparative study of data related to Universities in Madrid (Spain), and also data from Universities in Portugal, to better understand the Ombuds´ role as a metaphor for “building bridges”. |
| Session | 26 Ombuds as pontifex academicus |
| Speaker(s) | Jan Galkowski (Poland) Petr Šimon (Czech Republic) Natascha Maria Hedl (Austria) |
| Abstract | The ombuds not only solves particular problems or conflicts but works also for the unity of academic community. Universities are divided along different lines (age, position in hierarchy, social status, migratory background, gender and many others). Ombuds in various situations serves as the “minister of unity” – or from Latin for “bridge-builder” – as the pontifex who helps to reconcile not only individuals but also various groups of interests or factions. Our starting point is our experience of ombudspersons from Central Europe and more specifically from countries where the cultural legacy of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy is still important. |
| Session | 27 The Long Way Round: Hope in Ombuds Practice |
| Speaker(s) | Remonia Stoddart-Morrison (Canada) |
| Abstract | Ombuds handle many complex cases that calls for pursuing various university processes, entails many twists, turns, and weighs heavily on the wellbeing and resilience of the ombuds and the clients. How do we maintain our wellbeing and resilience while executing our responsibility to effectively advise clients and ensuring fairness? How do we work equitably to assist clients in maintaining their resilience and wellbeing? The session explores the benefits of fostering hope in ombuds practice and looks at various hope-informed practices that can aid in maintaining the wellbeing, resilience and capacity of both ombuds and clients while navigating these multifaceted cases. |
| Session | 28 Naming and / or Shaming: How far to go (if) with public transparency? |
| Speaker(s) | Natalie Sharpe (CANADA) Markus Seethaler (Austria) Dr. Csaba Laszlo Dégi (Romania) |
| Abstract | Confidentiality is one of the core principles of ombuds work. It is codified in virtually all charters and regulations. Some ombuds publicly name institutions in their annual reports and may even highlight malpractices through the media at times. The benefits of these mechanisms include the ability to disclose issues of public interest and to combat deficiencies within certain systems. However, a potential drawback is that trust may be eroded, and future cooperation undermined if individuals feel attacked or exposed. This may result in reputational damage of the ombuds, accusations of a hard hammer approach or even retaliation against ombuds. These three ombuds will explain the approaches that are taken in their countries and explain how their mandates influence their approaches, where some have a practice of naming and shaming, and others are more restricted or compelled to report in a different manner. The ombuds will talk about the importance of bringing issues forward but also about the repercussions after they go public and/or potential downfalls in their experiences of bringing issues to the attention of a broader audience. There will be time allotted for questions and encouragement for participants to share their own approaches and experiences. |