Forms of embeddedness and discourses of engagement: a case study of universities in their local environment

Abstract

The paper explores two universities' strategies of impact and engagement and their perceptions by local economic and policy stakeholders in a post-industrial city of Scotland. The concept of structural embeddedness is used to unpack the logics and repertoires of action of local universities and to relate discourses and actions to the nature and intensity of the relationship between universities and the local context. In contrast with the dominant knowledge and innovation research paradigm presenting universities as key drivers of regional economic development and competitiveness, the paper suggests multiple and at times contradictory levels of impact of universities depending on their capacity to embed themselves in regional development strategies and socio-economic regeneration programmes. The conclusion suggests that the nature and returns of universities' local engagement approaches are determined by their position on the higher education market as much as by their embeddedness in the local economy, culture and polity

Enhancing university brand image and reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour

“…Value co-creation can be defined as a joint innovation of distinctive value and/or experiences through the participation of customers and other stakeholders (Hatch and Schultz, 2010;Ind and Coates, 2013;Payne et al, 2009;Thatcher et al, 2016). It requires continuous interactions between a firm and its consumers, where both parties combine and integrate (to some degree) resources to help move the business forward and to establish their reputation in an attractive field (Lebeau and Bennion, 2014). Consumers' participation to create value can also influence other stakeholder perceptions of the company (Ind and Coates, 2013).…”

Indexing third stream activities in UK universities: exploring the entrepreneurial/enterprising university

“…According to Sharifi et al (2014) globalisation and consequent government policies have, however, driven higher education systems to become increasingly entrepreneurial. Reductions in higher education spending and increasing student numbers, have also meant that universities are increasingly forced to develop third stream (external) sources of income (PACEC, 2009;Gibb et al, 2009), such TSA activities therefore representing increasing value to the institutions themselves as the new more entrepreneurial paradigm for universities, developed in parallel, also typically involves greater focus on direct value creation and exploitation than previously (Lebeau and Bennion, 2014). Simultaneously, government policy increasingly aims to more directly commercialise university research outputs (Goldfarb and Henrekson, 2003) as a means of promoting economic growth, giving certain types of TSA a wider value to the economy.…”

The ‘civic premium’ of university graduates: the impact of massification on associational membership

“…Typically, the contribution of higher education has been conceived in terms of its economic benefits, whether that be in terms of the economic impact of the sector as a whole (UUK 2015), the impact of institutions within their locale (Huggins and Johnston 2009;Lebeau and Bennion 2014;Zhang, Larkin, and Lucey 2017) or the economic impact on individual graduates (Kelly and McNicoll 1998;Esson and Ertl 2016). Moretti's (2004) examination of the 'social return' of higher education was framed in terms of conventional economic theory as being the collective economic value of being a graduate (i.e.…”