Introduction
Universities and other types of higher education institutions (HEIs) have long been recognised as playing a key role, directly and indirectly , in socio-economic development, both at the local and national levels (Arbo & Benneworth, 2007; Pillay, 2011). They do so through the provision of skills and competencies (via graduates), knowledge and technology transfers, engagement and outreach, and so on. In recent years, and as a result of the rise of a post-industrial and globalised economy, HEIs the world over have also been mandated to help their regions and countries become globally competitive through fostering economic development and innovation, amongst other things (Harding, Scott, Laske, & Burtscher, 2007; OECD, 2007).
The rise of strategic science regimes within HEIs (Rip, 2004) has taken some of these external demands into account, and the increasing competitiveness for students, staff, and funding has led to a situation where external priorities and agendas play an increasingly important role (Benneworth & Jongbloed, 2010). This is particularly the case for HEIs located in peripheral regions, which often lack the adequate physical, technological, and knowledge infrastructures required to compete in the new knowledge economy. Not only are these regions highly dependent on a few knowledge-based institutions (HEIs , firms, and other knowledge producers and manipulators) to increase their absorptive capacity (Isaksen, 2014), but they are also at a disadvantage geographically, as they are located in less central (more remote) parts of their respective countries (Kohoutek, Pinheiro, Cabelkova, & Smidova, 2017). In addition, they tend to suffer from a multiplicity of socio-economic issues, such as deindustrialisation, unemployment, brain drain, and high levels of social exclusion and, thus, are often stigmatised as “places to avoid”.
HEIs located in peripheral areas tend to struggle when it comes to attracting talented students, staff, and competitive funding, and in many cases, they lack in-house research capacity, which, in turn, limits the developmental roles they can play in their host regions. This, in turn, generates a set of internal and external tensions that universities need to address in their quests for legitimate places in the increasingly competitive domestic and international higher education (HE) field, as well as in their immediate geographic surroundings.
In order to understand how these internal tensions emerge and develop over time and how they affect the roles that HEIs play in their host regions, one needs to consider the organisational and institutional features of HEIs . Therefore, building on earlier work in the field combined with seminal insights from organisational studies, this chapter provides a broad conceptual framework against which the case studies that form the bulk of this volume can be assessed and interpreted. In so doing, we address two interrelated questions: (1) what characterises HEIs as organisations ? and (2) how does the complexity inherent to modern HEIs (in the form of in-built ambiguities) affect their interactions with their host regions?
The volume derives from a comparative research project (2015–2017) investigating the socio-economic role of HEIs located in peripheral regions in Norway and the Czech Republic.1 Norway, one of the richest countries in the world, is located at the periphery of (Northern) Europe and has long identified HE as a key sector in the socio-economic development of the country. Regional considerations have, since the early 1950s, ranked high in the policy agenda, culminating in the geographic distribution of HEIs through the entire country (324,000 square kilometres). The Czech Republic emerged from communism in 1989 and its split with Slovakia in 1992 to become one of the strongest economies in Central Europe. It is oriented on the industrial sector and closely tied to its neighbour Germany. It is a landlocked country (of 79,000 square kilometres) situated in the centre of Europe. Higher education (HE) was profoundly reformed during the transition era in the 1990s, with partial changes after the 2000s. Regional development imperatives have largely been absent in HE policy until the recent adoption of EU regional agendas (structural funds, regional innovation policy, etc.).
We find comparisons—similarities and differences—regarding the role of HEIs in the development of peripheral regions in these two rather distinct national economies to be of interest to policymakers and scholars alike in shedding light on important contextual circumstances at the macro (policy and region), meso (HEIs ) and micro (key actors within and outside HE ) levels. Methodologically, the study adopted a mixed-methods research design with qualitative and quantitative data sets emanating from a variety of sources: policy and institutional documents; official statistical databases; national and international reports; published peer-reviewed studies; site visits; face-to-face interviews with selected internal and regional stakeholders; and seminars and workshops involving researchers, university managers, and regional actors across the public and private sectors and society at large.
The chapter is organised as follows. In the next section, we describe the features of universities as organisations by shedding light on five key ambiguities. Then we provide critical empirical insights on the contextual circumstances underpinning the case studies by shedding light on national policy dynamics and the chosen regional contexts, respectively. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the aim and focus of the volume’s individual chapters.
Universities as Complex Organisations Nested in Dynamic Policy and Regional Environments
It has long been acknowledged that HEIs are rather unique and complex organisational forms (Birnbaum, 1988; Clark, 1983). Even though many HEIs are rather recent in their histories and local traditions, as an organisational template or archetype, universities and other types of HEIs have, in some shape and form, been around for the best part of eight centuries (Ridder-Symoens, 2003). This implies that, as an organisational form, and when compared to other types of organisations, such as firms, HEIs are thought to be rather resilient when confronted with shifting external circumstances (Olsen, 2007). This resilience is due to the fact that, over the years, HEIs have adapted to new external contexts without losing a sense of identity regarding their core functions and purposes (Frank & Meyer, 2007; Wittrock, 1985; for a recent analysis see Pinheiro & Young, 2017).
Following seminal works in the area, Pinheiro (2012a, 2012b) characterises modern HEIs as organisations along five key structural features, each of them representing a certain type of ambiguity which distinguishes them from other organisational forms. Taken together, the complex interplay between these five ambiguities helps explain their internal dynamics, as well as the ways in which HEIs respond (or not) to environmental factors.
The Ambiguity of Intention
In spite of the fact that most people, internal s...