The fields of higher education and regional economic development have been increasingly converging, with universities being seen since at least the early 2000s as a vital nexus of innovation systems and architects of development and innovation policies (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Edwards et al., 2014). Several studies have examined the heightened expectations placed on universities to fulfil both old and new roles, including a recent article examining the roles of universities in regional governance processes (Fonseca & Nieth, 2021). The study analyses four case studies—Aalborg University (DK), the University of Aveiro (PT), the Autonomous University of Barcelona (ES), and the University of Twente (NL)—offering a comprehensive understanding of how different types of universities in various contexts navigate the policy arena and contribute to innovation policy design, implementation, and evaluation. This sheds light not only on the intricate engagement structure of universities, but also on the dynamic roles universities and its staff can play in regional strategy-making. The study thus provides insights for university management and policymakers seeking to harness the potential of universities in regional development.
Understanding University Engagement in Regional Strategy-Making
There is a complex interplay of diverse motivations driving universities to engage at a regional level, and specifically in strategy-making, including institutional and individual motivations, regional expectations, and the unique regional context that led to a university's creation. This is reflected in the work of Boucher et al. (2003), who analyse the different tiers of regional engagement of universities considering multiple historical, contextual and organisational factors. Our analysis found that universities in peripheral areas , such as Aalborg University, the University of Twente, and the University of Aveiro, often play a more direct role in innovation strategy processes, due to being key stakeholders in regions that are generally ‘institutionally sparse’. With no other universities (and few, if any, other significant knowledge or R&D organisations) to compete with in those regions, they became the first point of contact for policymakers looking for more evidence-based advice. The regional orientation of these universities, rooted in the historical context of their creation, further accentuated the symbiotic relationship between universities, regional stakeholders, and regional development.
In contrast, the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) is in a core metropolitan region, even if somewhat on the outskirts. Because of this, it offers a unique case where its institutional positioning towards regional engagement has shaped its activities towards social innovation and network governance. While it is competing with several other key knowledge institutions in the region, it has leveraged its geographical context in different ways: the suburban location of its campus has tightened its links to the companies that surround it, and to local governments.
The Dynamic Roles of Universities Across Strategy Stages
We sought to identify whether the university (through its representatives) played different roles throughout the regional innovation policy process. Typically, universities are seen as a monolith, often characterised by a single role, such as engaged university, or entrepreneurial university. However, universities are quite fragmented institutions, and can accommodate a variety of engagement practices across different fields and organisational levels. Indeed, engagement is dynamic, and our more granular approach sought to explore that. During the formulation stage of regional innovation policy, top management emerged as key representatives, navigating formal structures and steering the strategic orientation of their institutions. Academics, on the other hand, were crucial in the implementation phase, translating strategic priorities into tangible projects. University’s goals are then understood and owned to some extent by a range of people in the organisation. This dichotomy highlights the intricate balance between formal and informal modes of interaction, emphasising the significance of interpersonal skills, commitment, and champions in fostering effective regional governance.
We categorised the multifaceted roles of academic institutions inspired by existing literature: universities assumed roles of leaders, facilitators, moderators, and mobilisers during the formulation stage. They were knowledge providers but also played pedagogical and steering roles that facilitated learning dynamics and institution-building. Universities in regions where they held a prominent position or were the sole institution (such as peripheral regions) tended to have a more significant influence in the strategy design phase. These roles not only positioned universities as essential actors in the strategy process but also raised questions about the potential strain on university capacity in regions heavily dependent on contribution to governance.
Universities as 'Honest Brokers' in Regional Governance
A consistent finding across the case studies was the identification of universities as honest brokers by government authorities and other stakeholders (Gunasekara, 2006). This designation acknowledges the legitimacy and success of universities in moderating regional networks through their engagement and their perceived unbiased stance. Regionally-oriented universities played pivotal roles in guiding regional strategies, providing essential knowledge, and influencing policy priorities. Universities like Aalborg University and the University of Aveiro played pivotal roles in guiding regional strategies. UAB and the University of Twente also demonstrated their efficacy as influential stakeholders, albeit in different capacities.
However, the recognition of universities in the policy arena, or the regional leadership space, comes with a caveat—the potential for universities to exert policy capture (Brown, 2016), especially in regions heavily dependent on them. Universities’ attempts to attract regional funds through this engagement may call into question their relative ‘impartial’ position and contribution. This suggests a delicate balance between universities’ roles and perception as neutral stakeholders and the underlying interests associated with funding attainment, leadership, management, and research promotion.
From Traditional Roles to Place Leadership
Our study suggests a notable evolution in the roles universities play, moving beyond traditional knowledge transfer to becoming active participants in regional governance. Universities in peripheral regions assume planning-related roles, filling voids in regional government capabilities. Their contribution to formulating and implementing regional strategies highlight their increasing importance in steering regional development trajectories. This positions universities as key contributors to regional governance and place-leadership (Fonseca et al., 2021), compensating for regional deficiencies and fostering a more comprehensive approach to regional innovation. However, it is important to consider that approaches are diverse, underscoring the complexity of university roles in regional development and highlighting the need for nuanced policy considerations. As policymakers navigate the evolving landscape of regional development, we urge them to clarify expectations and align them with universities' capabilities, recognising their unique strengths and limitations. These insights can inform more effective strategies for harnessing the potential of universities as catalysts for positive change.
1. Peripheral regions can be defined by their geographic disconnection and distance to more ‘core’ or populationally dense regions. Peripheral regions may experience economic marginalisation, out-migration, ageing populations, and limited access to services.
2. Place-leadership refers to the strategic coordination and mobilisation of key resources, competencies, and powers within a specific place (e.g. region, city, community) and across public and private sectors or other organisations to shape the economic trajectory of that place (Beer et al., 2019).
Boucher G, Conway C, Van Der Meer E (2003) Tiers of engagement by universities in their region’s development. Regional Studies 37(9): 887–897.
Brown R (2016) Mission impossible? Entrepreneurial universities and peripheral regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation 23(2): 189–205.
Edwards EJ, Elena-Pérez S, Hegyi FB (2014) University-Regional Partnerships: Case Studies. Seville: European Commission; Joint Research Centre. Available at: http://www.innovactplatform.eu/sites/default/files/2018-10/Booklet%20of%20case%20studies_Universities%20and%20S3_FINAL%20version_0.pdf.
Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.
Fonseca L, Nieth L, Salomaa M, Benneworth P (2021) Universities Place Leadership – a question of agency alignment. In: Sotarauta M, Beer A (eds) Handbook on City and Regional Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gunasekara C (2006) Universities and associative regional governance: Australian evidence in non-core metropolitan regions. Regional Studies 40(7): 727–741.
This article is based on https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776421999743;“The role of universities in regional development strategies: A comparison across actors and policy stages,” co-authored by Dr. Liliana Fonseca and Dr. Lisa Nieth.
Image Credit: Canva